Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE

Syria and Lebanon

Major-General Sir Edward Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a decision has now been reached to invite the Syrian and Lebanese Governments to be represented at the San Francisco Conference.

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the difficulties standing in the way of the invitation of the Lebanese and Syrian Republics to the San Francisco Conference have now been overcome.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement with regard to the invitation to the Governments of Syria and Lebanon to attend the Sari Francisco Conference.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As I informed the House on 14th March, the question of an invitation to the Syrian and Lebanese Governments to be represented at the San Francisco Conference is under consideration by the Powers concerned. I am still not in a position to add anything definite to that statement, but I have every hope that a satisfactory solution will be reached very shortly.

Sir E. Spears: Has my right hon. Friend recommended to the United States and Russian Governments that the two Republics be invited to attend the San Francisco Conference?

Mr. Eden: As I say, conversations are proceeding between the Great Powers, and I do not thing it would be right for me to say anything about the matter until they are concluded. My hon. and gallant Friend will observe that there is a note of optimism about the last part of my statement.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the statement on the colour bar and racial discrimination issued by the Conference of Missionary Societies in Great Britain and Ireland and circulated to all hon. Members; and if the British delegates to the San Francisco Conference will bear constantly in mind the principles therein outlined, and will advocate them in any discussion that may take place on Colonial affairs and the relationships of great Powers and their dependent peoples.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I have considered the statement to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would ask the hon. Member to await the reply to be given to-day to his Question by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This reply will indicate the general policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter; a policy which will be upheld by our delegates at San Francisco if the question arises there.

Mr. Driberģ: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that that Question will almost certainly not be reached orally, and will he say whether the reply is generally favourable?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I could take the words out of the mouth of any colleague.

WAR CRIMINALS

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will attempt to secure the agreement of all foreign Governments to the establishment of international principles which would prevent a country from providing asylum for a person wanted for trial as a war criminal.

Mr. Eden: The right of asylum is one which by international law States are entitled to exercise at their discretion. How-


ever, as the House is aware, His Majesty's Government have made plain to neutral Governments their hope and expectation that the right of asylum will not be used for the protection of war criminals. They have received from these Governments answers which I described in the House on 6th December as broadly speaking not unsatisfactory.

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that my Question is directed not to so-called neutral Governments but to any country whatever? We have undertaken to pursue these criminals to the uttermost ends of the earth, and I am urging some principles which would be applicable to any country, not merely to present neutrals.

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend can surely take it that Allied Governments will refuse to deal with these people, enemy countries will be defeated, and all that is left are the neutral countries. That is why I referred to them.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the reply of the Portuguese Government was more or less unsatisfactory?

Mr. Eden: I said that, collectively, they were not unsatisfactory. So far as I remember the Portuguese reply, it was a pretty good one.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government, or the War Crimes Commission, to secure the attendance for trial or questioning of an enemy or former enemy leader, alleged by a member of the United Nations to be a war criminal, who has already taken refuge in a neutral country.

Mr. Eden: The situation to which the hon. Member refers has not yet, so far as I know, arisen. If it does arise, it will be for the Allied Governments, and not for the War Crimes Commission, to concert together and to take appropriate joint action in the circumstances of each case. Meanwhile, the assurances on this subject received from neutral Governments, in reply to representations made by His Majesty's Government and the United States Government are not unsatisfactory, as I have already informed the House.

Mr. Driberģ: Could my right hon. Friend say when he is going to abandon the use of the phrase "not unsatisfactory," and describe something as satisfactory?

Mr. Eden: I do not propose to abandon it. It seems to me a pretty good description.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take immediate steps, with a view to securing agreement among all our Allies, that no consideration be given to devising legal machinery for the trial of Hitler, seeing that, as Commander-in-Chief of the German armed forces, he must have authorised or approved of the atrocities committed by such forces in Russia, Poland and elsewhere, and so has already merited summary execution.

Mr. Eden: Under the terms of the Moscow Declaration on German Atrocities, published on 1st November, 1943, those major war criminals whose crimes have no particular geographical localisation will be punished by a joint decision of the Governments of the Allies. I need hardly add that Hitler is regarded by His Majesty's Government as one of the major war criminals, coming within the scope of the Declaration.

Sir W. Davison: Is it fully realised by the Allies that Hitler, as Commander-in-Chief of the German armies, has directly concerned himself with the smallest details of German military operations, and is fully aware of all actions taken or not taken by all German forces in the field?

Mr. Eden: If Hitler's only crime was to be concerned with the military machine, it would be one which in certain respects we might almost forgive.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will it be the duty of a British soldier who sees Hitler to shoot him, or to bring him back alive?

Mr. Eden: I am content to leave that to the judgment of any British soldier.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Allied Assistance

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement of reassurance to the Greek people that all promised financial and other assistance from this country


or from Allied nations will be given independently of the results of the forthcoming plebiscite and general elections.

Mr. Eden: As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, I can give an assurance that the results of the plebiscite and the general elections will not affect any promises of assistance which have been made to Greece. I cannot speak for the Allies, but if my hon. Friend has in mind the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, he will no doubt be aware of the resolution which provides that relief and rehabilitation shall be distributed on the basis of the relative needs of the population and without discrimination because of race, creed or political belief.

Mr. Cocks: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that most satisfactory statement may I ask him whether he will have it repeated in Athens—[An HON. MEMBER: "And in Bulgaria"]—I am thinking about Athens—as people in Greece are being told that unless they vote for the present Greek Government or the Monarchy, British support will be withdrawn?

Mr. Eden: All sorts of foolish statements have been made but the Government's policy is set out here.

Varkiza Agreement

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the protest made to the British Ambassador by E.A.M., to the effect that various departures from the Varkiza Agreement are being made on the other side; and what action he has taken on this protest.

Mr. Eden: I would refer to the statement I made on 14th March, in which I said that the Greek Government had undertaken to examine all the allegations made by E.A.M. and to take action in any cases where they are found to be correct. For their part, His Majesty's Government regard it as most important that the Agreement should be strictly observed by both sides.

Mr. Cocks: Has the Foreign Secretary had any report on the result of these investigations by the Greek Government?

Mr. Eden: No, I have not. I understand that most of these allegations refer to local incidents in different parts of the country.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say specifically what action His Majesty's Government are now taking to see that the Agreement is properly carried through?

Mr. Eden: I dealt with that last time. I said that this information was communicated to the Greek Government, and interviews have taken place on the subject between members of the Greek Government and E.A.M. members.

Voting (Supervision)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have yet been taken to secure that, when a general election or plebiscite is held in Greece, there are sufficient impartial observers on the spot to secure, as far as possible, a free vote of the electors.

Mr. Eden: As has already been announced, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to help in supervising elections in Greece and would welcome the co-operation of their Allies. The Greek Government have stated that they intend to ask for such assistance. No detailed preparations have yet been made to provide observers, since it is not yet possible to fix even an approximate date on which the plebiscite or elections will be held. When the time comes, however, we shall certainly try to ensure that any supervision which may be agreed upon shall be effective.

Mr. Price: Do I understand from that, that other members of the United Nations will be asked to send delegations to supervise?

Mr. Eden: That was the original suggestion which the Greek Government made.

Captain Duncan: In addition to a free vote, will these observers ensure a secret ballot and an accurate counting of votes; and will this procedure also be carried out in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Poland?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we shall certainly do our best to ensure that in Greece. It is our desire to ensure the same practice everywhere. We think that is the only way in which the result will be satisfactory.

British Forces (Use)

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that British troops are now


garrisoning areas previously occupied by E.L.A.S. and of the recently attempted legislation which threatened freedom of speech, he will take all necessary measures to ensure that they will not be made use of in any way or at any time in such a manner as might intimidate Greek citizens or prevent the free expression of political and social opinion, as promised in the E.A.M.-Plastiras agreement of 12th February.

Mr. Eden: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind when he speaks of recent attempts to impose legislation threatening freedom of speech. As regards the British Forces in Greece, one of their tasks is to ensure that law and order are maintained, and they must enjoy the necessary powers for this purpose. Subject to this qualification, however, I can give an assurance that they will not be used to intimidate Greek citizens or to prevent the free expression of political and social opinions. Indeed, I might add that at no time have they been used for any such purpose, and that the constant objective of His Majesty's Government in Greece has been to create conditions in which the Greek people could freely take their own decisions about the future form and composition of their Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WORKS OF ART (FRANCE)

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain as to the custody of works of art by British artists which have not yet been returned from the Paris Salon of 1940; what charges are being made in respect of the safe keeping of such works of art; and when it will be possible for the same to be returned to this country.

Mr. Eden: I understand that thanks to the efforts of the "Salon des Artistes Francais" all the pictures to which my hon. Friend refers are safe. The artists concerned have been informed accordingly. The pictures are at present in a furniture store and I am having further inquiries made about what charges there will be, if any, and how soon the pictures can be returned to this country.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise the heavy burden which is entailed on artists in having to pay for

storage, if the French authorities, whose kindly action in this matter we much appreciate, are unable to secure the temporary storage of their pictures free of charge?

Mr. Eden: I have not heard about storage. I think the French artists concerned have made great efforts to save these pictures and keep them safe from the Germans.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (IMPORT DUTY ON SPIRITS)

Captain Lonģhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Egyptian Government to induce them to remit, in favour of His Majesty's Forces serving in Egypt, the recently imposed 100 per cent. import duty on spirits.

Mr. Eden: The question of such representations was considered by the Departments concerned at the time of the imposition of the increased duty, and it was decided that there were no good grounds for the action proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I regret that, after further consultation with those Departments, I do not feel able to re-open the question.

Captain Longhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in view of the fact the Egyptians are several hundred million pounds up on us, I gather, as the result of the war, there is a certain degree of what I might call friendly resentment felt by the Forces at the imposition of this tax on what is one of the few consolations of service in that area? Would my right hon. Friend make representations that perhaps a little degree of lend-lease might not be inappropriate in this connection?

Mr. Eden: I fully understand my hon. and gallant Friend's sentiments. I share them to a large extent, but he will realise that this is a tax placed on luxury goods by the Egyptian Government. It is a lower tax than we place on luxury goods of a similar kind in this country, and I do not think my position about representations is a very strong one.

Mr. Astor: Does that mean that the Egyptian Government can put any tax they want on any article taken in by N.A.A.F.I. for the welfare of our troops?

Mr. Eden: It is not a question of N.A.A.F.I., but of the import of goods


into Egypt. The Egyptian Government are independent and, of course, they can impose any tax they wish.

Captain Gammans: Are all Allied troops treated in the same way, or only British troops?

Mr. Eden: This is a duty placed on whisky going into the country. I understand that whisky is 22s. in Egypt, and gin £ 10s. 6d.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (BRITISH NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any British newspaper correspondents in Finland.

Mr. Eden: Since the Finnish armistice was signed, a few British newspaper correspondents have paid visits to Finland from Sweden, and others have been to Finland from Moscow in a party organised by the Soviet Government. So far as I am aware, there are no British newspaper correspondents in Finland at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT)

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are in touch by means of representatives, either diplomatic or military, with the present Hungarian Provisional Government.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government are in touch with the Hungarian Provisional Government, through the British Political Representative in Hungary. His Majesty's Government are also represented on the Allied Control Commission in Hungary, which was established to administer the Armistice with that country.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give details of an accident to an aeroplane of Air Transport Command, on 3rd March, on a journey from England to Paris, which caused the loss of 16 lives.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am informed that

the aircraft involved in this accident belonged to the United States Air Transport Command. I am not in a position to add to the statement which has been published by the American authorities.

Mr. Bellenģer: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report in a reputable newspaper that this aeroplane belonged to R.A.F. Transport Command; and were any British passengers involved in this accident?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have already told the hon. Member that this aircraft did not belong to R.A.F. Transport Command. On the second part of the question, no British passengers were involved in the accident.

Oral Answers to Questions — W.A.A.F. (HEADGEAR)

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider substituting for the present form of head-gear of the W.A.A.F., which is neither practical, comfortable nor becoming, a form of beret.

Sir A. Sinclair: The change suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend is under consideration. I am afraid that shortage of material and labour precludes any hope of early replacement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL, AVIATION

Commonwealth Routes (Cheap Return Fares)

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, as representing the Minister of Civil Aviation, if he will take steps to secure that one of the conditions imposed on the new Commonwealth Routes Corporation shall be the provision of cheap return fares, to and from the Dominions, so that those close contacts which have been made during the emergency may be perpetuated in times of peace.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The fixing of fares on the Commonwealth routes will be a matter for agreement between the operators and the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth countries concerned. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that His Majesty's Government are


fully alive to the contribution which air communication can make towards maintaining close contact between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Commonwealth.

Sir W. Brass: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the whole future of the British race depends on close relationship between the members of the British Empire and the Mother Country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, and we look to air communications still further to strengthen the links between the different parts of the British Empire.

Scotland

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, as representing the Minister of Civil Aviation, whether the Government have now reconsidered the possibility of establishing an air line in Scotland to operate a domestic, transcontinental and transoceanic service.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As is clear from the Whte Paper Command 6605, which was debated in this House on 20th March, it is not proposed at this stage, to create a separate organisation specially for operating services in and from Scotland. On the other hand the tentative schedule of routes now being worked out for Scotland provides for a comprehensive network of services connecting the main centres of population and the outlying areas such as the Western and Northern Isles.

Sir T. Moore: Does my hon. Friend realise that Scotland does not accept the White Paper; and do the Government realise that this frequent disregard for Scottish interests will, in the end, drive some of us seriously to consider the arguments for Home Rule?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is a thousand pities that so much concentration is placed on Prestwick, which is by no means the only matter of importance when considering Scottish aviation. When the schedule of routes comes to be published it may well be found that Scotland is far better off than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only Scotland which does not accept the White Paper?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member aware that we had experience between the wars of industries being taken away from Scotland, and that we do not want Prestwick taken away?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The schedule of routes will provide for increased industry for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Forces' Air Mail

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has yet been reached regarding reduction in the cost of airmail letters to members of the Forces serving abroad.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the important part played by letters from home in maintaining the morale of troops overseas, he will make available to the Postmaster-General the aeroplanes required to enable him to extend to troops in the C.M.F. and M.E.F. the privilege of the Forces' 2d. air-letter recently instituted for troops in S.E.A.C., Ceylon and China.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The postal concessions now in force to troops in the Far East, including the 2d. Forces letter, have been extended to the Central Mediterranean Force and the Middle East Force, including Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Paiforce and East Africa.

Sir A. Knox: Does that mean that postage is now 1½d.?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, for the one-ounce letter, which will go by air, the same way as for S.E.A.C. The other letters, which used to go for 6d., will go for 2d.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. What about Question 30?

Mr. Speaker: As soon as the Minister of Information arrives, I will call it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any explanation of the non-arrival of the Minister?

Telephone Directory

Mr. Hiģģs: asked the Postmaster-General why the 1945 Telephone Directory is not being issued to private subscribers and only issued to business firms in quantities equal to the number of lines they have installed; and can he see his way


clear to increase the issue to something approximating to the number of instruments installed.

Captain Crookshank: In view of the urgent need for economy in paper, the supply of directories to residential subscribers ceased, and the supply to business subscribers was curtailed, as from September, 1940. Arrangements have now been made for all residential telephone subscribers to be supplied with a copy of their up-to-date telephone directory during the twelve months commencing in May next, but the paper situation is not yet good enough to justify me in supplying additional copies to business subscribers.

Mr. Hiģģs: Is the Postmaster-General aware that, for every new directory supplied, an old one is, or should be, collected; and can he say, therefore, how this shortage of paper arises?

Captain Crookshank: I gathered from the hon. Member's Question that he wanted more distributed than are now being distributed, and thus what he is now saying does not arise.

Mr. Hiģģs: I said "as distributed before."

ALLIED PROPAGANDA

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware of the anxiety amongst parents of soldiers fighting the Germans as to the character and adaptability of the Allied publicity and propaganda in the fighting and occupied areas; whether the Germans are fully informed as to the effect of our peace terms; that the Allies have no intention of extirpating their enemies, and that an early conclusion of hostilities will be to the advantage of the Germans equally with the Allies.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to the recent report of the psychological warfare experts of the American First Army, which indicates that Allied propaganda, as at present devised, is failing to induce a tendency to surrender amongst German soldiers; whether arrangements can be made to re-orientate our propaganda at an early opportunity; and whether he can arrange to make available a complete series of

existing typical pamphlets and broadcast propaganda matter in use against Germany.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Many apologies, Mr. Speaker, for being late.
The Allies have repeatedly made it clear, most recently in the Declaration of Heads of Governments at Yalta, that it is not their purpose to destroy the German people. Millions of leaflets and hundreds of broadcasts are carrying this message to Germany. The people at the receiving end are much better qualified than I am to judge of the effectiveness of Allied propaganda. Some indication of its success is given by the extreme severity of the penalties imposed by the GermanHigh Command on troops found in possession of Allied leaflets or listening to Allied broadcasts. During the last three years the German Government have constantly warned their people against what they call the continuous stream of cunning British propaganda. They would not have imposed the death penalty for listening to the B.B.C. or reading British leaflets if our propaganda efforts had been in vain. Sets of pamphlets and leaflets in German are supplied regularly to the Library. So also, until recently, were the English texts of all B.B.C. broadcasts to Germany. But the Librarian found that these were very bulky and never read, and so I asked the B.B.C. to send no more.

Mr. Cluse: Are we to be allowed to see copies of the leaflets so that we can be informed of their contents?

Mr. Bracken: We sent stacks of these leaflets to the Library, until the Librarian of the House thought that the Library was becoming a stock pile for the Ministry of Information pamphlets, and asked me if I would oblige him by sending no more. However, if the House is really desirous of seeing the vast amount of material we are sending out to Germany, I shall be very glad once more to send a truck-load.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the war, at this moment, is being decided by arms, and not by words?

Mr. Bracken: That is a point that has occurred to me.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: As one who is very interested in seeing these leaflets, may I ask if the Minister can say whether the House was told when they were placed in the Library?

Mr. Bracken: At the request of several hon. Members about four or five months ago we started to send this vast bulk of material to the Library. The Librarian wrote to me that, the position was impossible, that they were occupying a large part of the Library, and that no hon. Member had ever taken the trouble to read any of them.

Miss Rathbone: Are any English translations supplied, or are they all in the original German?

Mr. Bracken: As a matter of fact, we did several translations of some of the pamphlets which have been dropped over Germany, but, as they were unread, I felt it was impossible any longer to ask the hard-working people in my Ministry to provide material which was unread.

Mr. Ballenģer: Is it not possible that the German people will not understand that somewhat nebulous term, that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to destroy the German people?

Mr. Bracken: The German people have to understand quite a lot of things before they can settle down to their old way of life, and, when the Conference at Yalta decided to put on record, once more, that it was not the object of His Majesty's Government, or their associated Governments, to destroy the German people, that is now the German people's best hope of survival. There is only one man in the whole world who wants to destroy the German people, and that is Hitler, who has already destroyed the people of his own country—Austria.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for a long time, it was the declared policy of the Government not to allow people in this country to know the contents of leaflets dropped over Germany for propaganda purposes; and can he say when that policy was changed, and when that changed policy was communicated to the House?

Mr. Bracken: If my memory serves me right, that decision was communicated to the House at least five months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Temporary Houses, Fife

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Works whether he has given consideration to the resolution of the Fife County Council on the Government's temporary housing, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for West Fife; and whether he has any statement to make.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to statements on this subject made both by the Minister of Health and myself, in the course of the Debate on Housing last week.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the Fife county council has sites waiting, and that people are waiting to go into the houses, when the houses are supplied on the sites; and can he tell us when the houses are going to be sent and erected on the sites?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot give the hon. Member off-hand the dates when houses will be delivered to particular localities, but any houses that have been promised will be delivered.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister give an approximate date when they will get these houses?

Hon. Members: Two years.

Roofing Tiles (Supplies, London)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Works whether the present supply of roofing tiles for the London area is adequate.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

Tile-makers (Release from Forces)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Works the number of tile makers who have been released from the Army, Navy and R.A.F. during the past 12 months.

Mr. Sandys: During this period 244 skilled tile-makers have been released from the Armed Forces and 20 from the Civil Defence Services.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the Minister aware that a great number of these brickyards, which will be needed even more in the near future than they are at present, cannot come into operation until the key-men are released from the Services?

Mr. Sandys: We are very well aware of it, and that is why we have been getting the skilled tile-makers out of the Forces.

Mr. Bartlett: Very few.

Mr. Sandys: The number I mention—244—represents more than 10 per cent. of the total labour force now in that industry.

Ministry of Works Office, Sheffield (Closing)

Mr. Jenninģs: asked the Minister of Works whether he is satisfied that all proper interests were considered before deciding to transfer his Sheffield office to Leeds; and, as this action will cause delay and inconvenience if the people of the city of Sheffield have to transact their business in Leeds, will he reconsider the question.

Mr. Sandys: The office in question has been dealing with bomb damage repairs and salvage. Work of this nature has diminished to the point where the retention of an office and staff is no longer justified.

Mr. Jennings: Will the Minister bear in mind that Sheffield is a great centre of the steel industry, with large post-war problems of its own, and that it is not a suburb of Leeds?

Mr. Sandys: Of course, I quite well appreciate that. The point is that this office is not a general office to carry out all the business of the Ministry of Works in the area. It was set up for the specific purpose of dealing with matters connected with bomb damage repairs and salvage. These questions now take up very little time, and we do not feel justified in keeping the office and staff going.

Emergency Repairs

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Works what are the emergency repairs which householders may undertake without licence.

Mr. Sandys: The circumstances in which building work of an emergency character can be carried out without a licence are defined in paragraph 6 (b) of Defence Regulations 56A, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is satisfied that it covers all the most necessary urgent work, bearing in mind the fact that some local authorities take as long as three months to reply to an application for a licence?

Mr. Sandys: The question refers to work that can be done without licence. The most urgent emergency work can be carried out without a licence. With regard to delays, I would like to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, in London, where the £10 licensing limit has been applied during the last few months, the average time taken to issue a licence is under a week. Considering the other preoccupations of London local authorities at the moment, I do not think that that is slow.

Licut.-Colonel Dower: Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, may I ask him to ginger up those local authorities which are raising the average to as long as three months?

Canadian Prefabricated Houses

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works on what terms Mr. H. F. Brunton and Mr. C. B. K. Van Norman offered to supply 100,000 prefabricated houses from Canada; why the offer was not accepted; and if a specimen house was erected anywhere in this country.

Mr. Sandys: This Question appears to be based on a number of misapprehensions. No such offer has been made by either of these gentlemen. The possibility of obtaining houses from Canada has, however, been explored at various times.

Captain Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a specimen house of this type is practicable?

Mr. Sandys: A specimen house of another type does exist. I have seen this story in the newspapers. It is based on a whole series of misapprehensions. I should be glad to give my hon. and gallant Friend the complete story if he would like it.

Bomb Damage Repairs (Mobile Labour Force)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Works if it is his intention to apply the mobile labour force, now engaged in war damage repairs in London, to help the other bombed towns in the same way as soon as the programme in London is completed.

Mr. Sandys: As soon as the programme of emergency repairs in London is sufficiently far advanced, the mobile labour employed on this work will be released to return to the areas from which they have come.

OPEN-CAST MINING (FARM RENTS)

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Works whether a farmer is relieved of the rent of that part of his farm on which prospecting for the purpose of working coal by open-cast mining is being carried on; or whether he is only relieved of the rent after his land has been requisitioned.

Mr. Sandys: The position is governed by the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, of which I am sending my hon. Friend the relevant extracts.

Mr. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when a farmer is relieved of the rent?

Mr. Sandys: I think it is a legal point, and I would not like to attempt to interpret the law.

Mr. Taylor: Can the Minister say whether the farmer will have to interpret it, or whether he has to go on paying rent?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Voluntary Recruitment

Mr. Bellenģer: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any plans ready for recruitment for the Navy on a voluntary basis; and whether he is satisfied that he can obtain sufficient numbers of officers and ratings by this method.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The conditions under which men are invited to volunteer for the Navy are being reviewed; in the meantime the pre-war arrangements remain in force. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Bellenģer: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that review includes pay and allowances and other matters of that nature affecting long-term engagements in the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: Naturally the Admiralty, in reviewing the matter, would take all relevant considerations into account.

Commander Aģnew: Is it the case that men are already coming forward willing to sign for a 12 years' engagement?

Mr. Alexander: I would like to have notice of that question.

W.R.N.S. (Disciplinary Offences)

Sir H. Williams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many W.R.N.S. have been tried by courts-martial for offences; and in how many cases did these offences involve desertion.

Mr. Alexander: Members of the W.R.N.S. are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act and disciplinary offences committed by them are not tried by court martial. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day the Lord Chancellor published an order under some Act of Parliament in which he declared that W.R.N.S. were members of the Armed Forces of the Crown, and what is the significance of that order?

Mr. Alexander: I have not been given notice of that question but the answer to my hon Friend's original Question is as I have stated. I am not sure what is the object of my hon. Friend but I must say that the behaviour and conduct of the members of the Women's Royal Naval Service fully justify their present position.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Lord Chancellor on the significance of this recent order?

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a member of the W.R.N.S. does not come under the Naval Discipline Act, her estate on her decease has to pay Death Duty?

Mr. Alexander: There is a point on that which, I understand, has been raised with the Chancellor but any amending legislation which would be required to deal with that would have to come from the Treasury.

Mr. Shinwell: Are not the members of the Women's Royal Naval Service in rather a different category from the women members of the Army and Air Force, and therefore deprived of certain privileges common to the others?

Mr. Alexander: I do not know of any really substantial privilege which is thereby denied.

Electrical Artificers

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why journeymen electricians are not allowed to be engine-


room artificers on the same conditions as apprentice fitters of 20 years of age; and why electrical wiremen are not allowed to enter the mechanical section of artificers while able seamen can become wiremen and qualify for a full electrician's card at the end of the war or on discharge.

Mr. Alexander: With regard to the first part of the Question, I presume the hon. Member refers to electrical artificers rather than to engine-room artificers. A high degree of skill in precision mechanical fitting and turning work or in trades involving precision work is required of electrical artificers, a qualification attained by apprentice fitters but not normally found in journeymen electricians, although any electrician who could pass the trade test would be acceptable as an electrical artificer. In reply to the second part of the Question, there is nothing to prevent electrical wiremen becoming electrical artificers if they can pass the trade test. Seamen are trained and transferred to wiremen only for certain special duties, the wiremen branch generally being reserved for electricians.

Sir R. Younģ: If I send my right hon. Friend copies of the correspondence I have received about a skilled man being refused permission to enter the engine-room artificer section and the mechanical section and made to go into the ordinary wiremen's section, will he go into the matter?

Mr. Alexander: Most certainly I will examine the correspondence but I attach great importance to journeymen electricians being able to pass the Service trade tests.

Bodmin Moor (Admiralty Decision)

Mr. Bossom: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the exceptionally interesting historical and antiquarian associations connected with Bodmin Moor, he will select some other bombing range for the use of the R.N.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached regarding the requisition by his Department of land on Bodmin Moor for use as a bombing range.

Mr. Alexander: The Admiralty have decided not to proceed with the project to establish a bombing range on Bodmin Moor. There is close liaison between

Government Departments about the requisitioning of land and, in view of public comment on this matter, I can assure the House there was no intention at any time on the part of the Admiralty to establish this bombing range without proper consultation with other Departments representing interests in Bodmin Moor.

Mrs. Wright: Does the Minister realise the great happiness with which this decision will be received in the West Country?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the Admiralty knew what Bodmin Moor meant? Why did they leave it until now to decide that they would not use it in this way?

Mr. Alexander: The Service Departments know about most of these things before they have to consider special projects, and before the public agitation arose in this case the Admiralty were in touch with other Government Departments concerned in the special interests, of which they were aware, as to how they would be affected.

Civilian Personnel, Pacific (Uniform)

Mr. Petherick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before promulgating the recent order for civilian personnel employed by the Admiralty to wear R.N.V.R, uniform whilst serving in the Pacific, he gave full consideration to the resentment it might arouse among R.N.V.R. officers, especially as this civilian personnel is immediately to outrank most of them, despite their long years of service and that this civilian personnel are empowered to enforce naval discipline but are not amenable to it themselves.

Mr. Alexander: These civilians are officers, generally with long Admiralty experience, who perform duties of operational importance to the Navy. In ordinary circumstances they perform these in a purely civilian capacity, but the conditions in the Pacific zone have made the grant of Naval rank essential. The rank given is that required for the performance of the duties and the uniform is that of the Special Branch of the R.N.V.R. with its distinctive green bands. A similar course has been taken throughout the war where the nature of the duties to be performed has made this necessary. I have


no reason to believe that other R.N.V.R. officers do not appreciate the necessity for this.

Mr. Petherick: Will the Minister be good enough to make further inquiries into this matter, in view of the fact that it must be extremely galling for officers with many years' active service to have a lot of civilians suddenly put in over their heads?

Mr. Alexander: All these appointments must be subject to qualifications to do the job, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the members of the R.N.V.R. know the position quite well.

MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Production is now fully engaged in the work of his Ministry; and if that Ministry will be retained after the end of the European war.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The Minister of Production is now fully engaged in the work of his Ministry and at this moment is in the United States of America on that subject. As to whether the Ministry will be retained after the end of the European war, that surely may be left to the Government of the day.

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the Prime Minister is anxious to get rid of some of these Ministers as early as possible, is he not?

The Prime Minister: On general grounds I am always anxious that there should be as few Ministers as possible. As for disturbing Ministers who are doing valuable work at the present time, I think that that would be a mistake and a premature judgment of the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Prime Minister looked around and ascertained whether every Minister is actually undertaking full-time work?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that most States are now adopting a policy of national planning, and if we also adopt a policy of national planning, will he consider retaining this Ministry and merging several other Ministries in it so that they can be organised on a basis of economic planning?

The Prime Minister: Obviously these are matters that have to be settled by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.

GERMANY (SURRENDER TERMS)

Sir W. Brass: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, as one of the terms to be imposed upon Germany, the handing over of a square mile or any conveniently-sized smaller badly-bombed area in Berlin to the United Nations, to be kept by them as a permanent record of the war started by Germany in 1939, appropriate notices to that effect being prominently displayed thereon.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir W. Brass: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the German people are aggressive and that this would be a good memorial to show them the power marshalled against them as a result of their act of aggression?

The Prime Minister: Many proposals have been made; I think this was rather a silly one.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Paper Allocation (General Election)

Mr. Naylor: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give particulars concerning the method of distributing paper and card for the purposes of the General Election; and if it is intended to give national party organisations a direct allocation for national poster propaganda, apart from ordinary constituency requirements.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. de Rothschild): Arrangements are being made to secure that paper shall be available to all candidates for the General Election on an appropriate scale but the precise arrangements for distribution have not yet been worked out. As regards the last part of the Question, it is the intention to make an allocation of paper for national party organisations as well as for constituency requirements.

Mr. Naylor: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the House will have an opportunity of considering those arrangements before they are finally fixed?

Mr. de Rothschild: No, Sir, I think not.

Sir T. Moore: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether arrangements will include handbills which have to be a certain size for the post office to accept them?

Mr. Naylor: May I have an answer to my question? [Interruption.] May I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I have called for a reply?

Timber Importers (Visits Abroad)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Supply why agents and importers of timber are not permitted to visit Sweden, Finland, Canada and the U.S.A. at the present time; and when facilities for such visits will be granted to them.

Mr. de Rothschild: Visits by representatives of individual timber firms to the countries mentioned could not at present assist, and might prejudice, arrangements for supplies of timber for this country. My right hon. Friend, however, fully recognises how important it is that individual firms should be able to renew personal contacts and every effort will be made to facilitate such visits as soon as practicable.

Mr. Petherick: Now that my hon. Friend has won his long-distance race and has weighed in, could I ask if he will use his influence with the Minister in order that representatives of British firms who wish to travel to different parts of the world may be enabled to do so?

Mr. de Rothschild: I will look into this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister still determined to have men of good will in his party?

Wolfram (Cligga Mine)

Commander Aģnew: asked the Minister of Supply what price was being paid for wolfram drawn from the Cligga mine immediately before the mine was closed; and what price has been paid for any wolfram subsequently imported.

Mr. de Rothschild: The answer to the first part of the Question is 100s. per unit. Purchases abroad since that date have been at 75s. per unit f.o.b., except for one long term contract, made in 1942, at 100s.

Commander Aģnew: In view of the fact that the difference in price is not very great, could not the Ministry of Supply

consider re-opening the Cligga mine, and thus keep our own men employed in getting this metal for the war effort?

Timber Supplies (Germany)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Supply if he will investigate the possibilities of getting timber from Germany for post-war housing and bringing it to this country in German ships as soon as the war in Europe ends.

Mr. de Rothschild: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Mr. Bossom: Could my hon. Friend say if any action is being taken, because I believe something over 20 per cent. of the surface of Germany is now covered with soft wood that would be suitable for this purpose?

Mr. de Rothschild: I cannot add anything to the answer which was given by the Prime Minister yesterday, but every attention is being given to this subject at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Cheese Ration

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the position of persons living alone when re-fixing the cheese ration and allow them to continue to have the present ration of three ounces.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): My right hon. and gallant Friend sympathises with the difficulties of those who live alone, but he does not consider he would be justified in varying in their favour the general policy of fixing rations at the highest possible level for all to enjoy.

Stocktaking Date (Easter)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food (1) if he will discontinue the use of Form G.C. 3 and Form R.G.C. 5;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that 31st March comes in the Easter week-end, he will remit the order for stocktaking this month.

Mr. Mabane: The answer is "No, Sir."

Sir W. Smithers: Arising out of the answer to the two questions, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the filling up of these two forms is unnecessary and overlaps, and owing to the very short supply of help which the grocers can get, they cannot fill up the forms and, if these are not filled up, they are liable to prosecution? Is he also aware, on Question 56, that the very hard worked distributors of food want a few days' rest over the Easter holidays, and what harm could be done by extending the period on this occasion?

Mr. Mabane: I do not think it quite works out that way.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at Question 56 again, and see whether it does not also involve the question of consumers, because the stocktaking does prevent them from getting their tea and sugar in advance as would happen at a normal week-end?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir, the stocktaking does not affect the question in which I know my hon. Friend is interested.

Livestock (Restrictions)

Major Keatinģe: asked the Minister of Food if, when an area is closed by foot-and-mouth disease restrictions, he will make adequate arrangements for the slaughter of marketable pigs and other livestock within that area, bearing in mind especially the shortage of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Mabane: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all reasonable steps are taken to minimise the inconvenience caused to farmers by restrictions on the movement of livestock imposed as a result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Whenever practicable, special arrangements are made to accept marketable animals for slaughter without delay, but it is not possible to guarantee that the necessary labour and equipment will always be available within the infected area.

Oranges, Liverpool

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of oranges available in Liverpool for sale to the public during the month of March were, owing to their rotten state or bitterness, surrendered as waste food or collected and sent elsewhere to be made into marmalade.

Mr. Mabane: About 50 tons of oranges, all of the bitter variety, allocated for sale to the public in the Liverpool area have been recovered during the present month and sent to manufacturers in order to avoid waste.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making supplies available to Liverpool in future, see that the oranges are sweeter?

Mr. Mabane: We will do our best.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Why did the Ministry persist in this policy when it was warned two months ago of the decaying state of these bitter Seville oranges, and yet used shipping space to bring in more and more to every greengrocer shop throughout the country?

Mr. Mabane: The supply in London has not equalled the demand and it would appear therefore that the taste in London is not so sweet as in Liverpool.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North also the supply is not equal to the demand?

Extra Milk (Expectant Mothers)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Food Executive Officers will not authorise on their own responsibility the issue of extra milk to a woman unable to name the father of her expected child and send the application to the Regional Controller; and whether he will direct that such applications shall be granted without such delay provided there is medical evidence of pregnancy.

Mr. Mabane: Pregnant women are granted facilities to enable them to obtain extra milk as soon as medical evidence of pregnancy is produced. No further particulars are required.

Mr. Keeling: Can my right hon. Friend say how the thing happens about which I wrote to him?

Mr. Mabane: I will do my best.

Temporary Ration Cards

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that members of the R.A.F. on leave, and on duty away from their parent unit, are supplied with emergency ration cards which entitle them to eggs, inter alia; that in many towns they are refused these


eggs because they are not regular customers; and what steps he is taking to remedy this grievance.

Mr. Mabane: Retailers of eggs are provided with eggs to meet temporary ration cards. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any cases where these arrangements have not worked satisfactorily I shall be glad to have them examined.

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into my own case?

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: asked the Minister of Food whether, in seaside towns where there is likely to be in the summer months a large number of holiday makers using emergency ration cards, provision will be made to make sure that Service men and women on sick leave or leave from the front or doing duty, yet only entitled to an emergency ration card, will receive priority.

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. It is not practicable or necessary to make such provision. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 14th March.

Canadian Poultry

Mr. Loģan: asked the Minister of Food, whether, in view of the increase in stocks of poultry and turkeys held by the Canadian Government and the shortage of meat supplies here, he will make the necessary shipping arrangements and secure these stocks for English consumption.

Mr. Mabane: So far as I am aware no stocks of poultry and turkeys are held by the Canadian Government. While my right hon. and gallant Friend is anxious to secure all available food to which this country is entitled, in present conditions imports from Canada are determined by priorities of need, and there are other foodstuffs which must rank before poultry and turkeys.

Mr. Loģan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Canadian Government have double the stocks—14,000,000 lbs. of poultry and 566,000 turkeys—100 per cent. more than last year?

Confectionery Retail Licence, Erith

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn

to the objection by the borough of Erith Chamber of Commerce to the granting of a licence for selling confectionery to Mr. Younger, at 113, High Street, Erith; if he is aware that his divisional food officer stated that as, Mr. Younger is connected with a multiple firm, he is under the Ministry's present arrangements, in a favoured position as compared with single owner businesses; and if he will reconsider his policy in this respect.

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir, the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend has been drawn to the matters set out in my hon. Friend's Question. The statement by the Licensing Officer of the London Food Division was incorrect and should not have been made. The object of the policy of my right hon. and gallant Friend is at all times to give equal treatment to all classes of traders and to avoid favoured treatment for any.

Parcels for France

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Food whether he can now give permission for parcels of food and small medical necessaries to be sent periodically, at the cost of the sender, to persons in France for whom satisfactory evidence is provided that such provision is temporarily needed to ensure their survival or restitution to health; and, if so, through what agency and under what conditions will this be allowed.

Mr. Mabane: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) on 21st March.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information given in that reply was practically nil, and in view of the interminable delays that were made in securing large scale supplies for France, what possible disadvantage could there be in giving this small concession which would involve a very small supply of food for France?

Mr. Mabane: There is much more in it than that. The reply given to the earlier Questions was very definite, and perhaps the hon. Lady will wait for a further statement that may be made in the course of the Debate to-day.

ALGERIAN WINE (PROFIT)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food under what authority was the profit on the importation of Algerian wine retained by his Ministry; and if Treasury sanction was obtained for the imposition of the equivalent of a tax.

Mr. Mabane: Imports on Government account may involve surpluses or deficits according to the circumstances of the case and no special authority is required to include such balances in the Departmental accounts other than the general statutory authority under which the Ministry of Food operates. Treasury authority was obtained in this as in all such cases for the purchase price, the Ministry's selling price, the traders' margins of profit and the retail selling price.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Ministry has, in fact, imposed a customs duty unconstitutionally, and will he find out what the penalty is likely to be?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir, I am not so aware.

CARGO VESSELS (POST-WAR CONSTRUCTION)

Mr. Kirby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present method, and the method to be employed in the immediate future, in the making of contracts for building cargo vessels for postwar trade; and are orders placed with firms having building facilities on cost-plus or similar basis, or are they placed on contract on a competitive price basis of tender.

Mr. Alexander: The present policy is to order merchant vessels on Government account only when they are required for specific operational purposes. Most cargo vessels now under construction, or which will be laid down in the future, are on account of shipowning firms. For such vessels an Admiralty licence is necessary but the contracts are a matter of agreement between the shipbuilders and shipowners concerned.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shipbuilders at present put forward the argument that they are tendering on a competitive basis and, therefore, cannot discuss favourable conditions with the shipbuilding workers?

Mr. Alexander: If they are dealing with private contracts, they may well be tendering with shipowners on a competitive basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Medical Appointments

Dr. Morģan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Philip Bahr is still on the Appointments Advisory Board of his Department, which selects British-born medical men for Colonial appointments; what remuneration is paid for this work, whether by sessional fees or by yearly salary; and on how many such cases in the past seven years has he attended the interviews of medical applicants for Colonial appointments.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Sir Philip Manson-Bahr has never been a member of the Committee which interviews medical candidates and makes recommendations as to their suitability for appointment to the medical services of the Colonies. This Committee is staffed entirely by members of the Colonial Office.

Dr. Morģan: Is the Minister aware that the statement I have made in my Question is in a Colonial Office publication?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, I am not.

Dr. Morģan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Philip Heinrich Manson-Bahr, a German or Swiss subject, born in Basle in 1881, and now naturalised is still the consultant-physician to his Department and the Crown Agents for the Colonies; whether any age limit is placed on such appointments, especially having regard to the number of British-born subjects now with special knowledge of tropical diseases; and whether such appointments are made after advertisement or by selection, and on whose recommendation.

Colonel Stanley: Sir Philip Manson-Bahr is a British subject who won the D.S.O., while serving with the R.A.M.C., in the last war. He is still one of the consulting physicians to the Colonial Office and to the Crown Agents for the Colonies. These appointments are reviewed annually and there is no age limit. Appointments are made by the Secretary


of State in consultation with his medical adviser and, if necessary, with other leading authorities on tropical medicine.

Dr. Morgan: Will the Minister be kind enough to answer my Question?

Colonel Stanley: I think I have answered it rather satisfactorily.

Dr. Morģan: But the words of the Secretary of State for Air were highly unsatisfactory.

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the statement on the colour bar and racial discrimination issued by the Conference of Missionary Societies in Great Britain and Ireland and circulated to all hon. Members; and if he will endeavour to promote throughout the Colonial Empire the observance of the principles outlined in this document.

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. I have read this document. The general principles outlined in it form the basis of the policy of His Majesty's Government, which, as I have often stated, is to do all in their power to secure equal treatment irrespective of colour for all the inhabitants of the Colonial Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (IMPORTED FOOD, TAXES)

Dr. Morģan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the case of the West Indian Crown Colonies, he will consider the desirability of recommending and urging on the local governments and the Governors the policy of abolishing all taxes on imported foodstuffs, with the exception of. alcoholic drinks, so as to ensure a uniform tax-free food system and to ease the burden of indirect taxation on the poor ill-nourished peasantry.

Colonel Stanley: The West Indian Governments are fully alive to the desirability of abolishing taxes on foodstuffs consumed by the poorer classes. There are revenue and other difficulties in the way of the attainment of this object, but the matter is being explored.

Dr. Morģan: Having regard to the low Income Tax in these Colonies, would the

Minister do what he can to expedite the reform of the fiscal system so that food can be imported into a Colony tax free?

Colonel Stanley: There are difficulties, but I would remind the hon. Member that many of the people in these Colonies are also growers of food.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Contrary to the suggestion made in the Question, will my right hon. and gallant Friend encourage the local natives to grow their own food, rather than import tinned food?

Colonel Stanley: In every territory it is a question of balancing food for consumption with food for export.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask for a report on the technical possibilities of the Lowdermilk Plan for the development of Palestine.

Colonel Stanley: These proposals are at present the subject of private technical investigation. At a later stage, when they are more fully formulated, I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is it not a fact that if the proposals are proved practicable, they will give great benefit to both Arabs and Jews?

Colonel Stanley: I think we had better have the investigation first.

Mr. Astor: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when this further investigation will be completed?

Colonel Stanley: I could not say that now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for the week after the Easter Recess?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, as at present arranged the Business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows:
On Tuesday, l0th April, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on


going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) is calling attention to the Repair of Bomb Damaged Houses.
Wednesday, 11 th April—Committee stage of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill. Second Reading of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. We propose to report Progress on the first Bill at such a time as will ensure our obtaining the Second Reading of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill, which we consider to be urgent and of a machinery character.
Thursday, 12th April—Committee stage of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill.
Friday, 13th April—Committee and remaining stages of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill, Welsh Church (Burial Grounds) Bill, Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Agriculture (Artificial Insemination) Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication to the House, for their convenience, as to when the National Health Services Bill and the Industrial Injury Insurance Bill are likely to be introduced? I put that question because there are statements in the Press to-day about the national health services which seem very much controversial in their nature, and which appear out of tune with the statements made by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Eden: They are certainly not in our immediate future programme, but if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to repeat his question at a later date I will then give him a considered reply.

Sir Percy Harris: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is anticipated that it will be necessary for a statement to be made after the Easter Recess on the progress of the war, especially in the light of the recent satisfactory progress?

Mr. Eden: I put in usual proviso, which I thought my right hon. Friend had noticed, that this Business is always subject to revision.

Mr. McNeil: Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that apart from whether or not we can have the National Health Services Bill at an early date, we should have an early opportunity of discussing the negotiating stage which we have apparently reached, and which, I think, will alarm and depress a large part of the country?

Mr. Eden: I will consider that. I did not know that the matter would be raised, but I will see if something can be done about it.

Mr. Bowles: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is assumed from the Debate we had the other day that the House of Commons accepted the White Paper purely and simply because it came up on the Estimates? Secondly, what is the great hurry to pass the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the hon. Member's first question is, "Yes, Sir," and the answer to the second is that it is in order to allow the new Parliamentary Secretary to do his job.

Mr. Graham White: Is it still the intention of the Government to allow time for a discussion on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I think it might come on early in the following week.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill is likely to be highly controversial, and that the Government are not likely to get it in the time stated; and why should the House now be hurried into passing legislation when the Government have had all this time to prepare it?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has not seen the Bill, of course. I am informed that it can be regarded as a machinery Bill, and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman does see it he will take a more optimistic view about its future.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very strong desire to have a crack at the Scottish Education Bill before this Parliament finishes—and time is running very short—will not the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate date for the Second Reading of the Scottish Education Bill?

Mr. Eden: I thought we were getting along very well, stage by stage. There will be an opportunity, but I cannot say when.

Mr. Messer: If the Government's proposals vary very greatly from the last White Paper on public health, will the Government publish a new White Paper?

Mr. Eden: I would like that question to be addressed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Buchanan: On the Adjournment to-morrow Scottish Members are raising a question affecting Prestwick. Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to have a Cabinet Minister present to reply on this matter, which we think very important?

Mr. Eden: I would like to consider that. I assume that the hon. Member does not mean a member of the War Cabinet, but a Minister of Cabinet rank.

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the Committee stage of the Family Allowances Bill will be taken, as there seem to be so many subjects which are pushing claims to come before it? Will it be soon after Easter, and how soon?

Mr. Eden: That is the difficulty. There are so many claims on time. It will be soon after Easter.

Mr. Bowles: When is it proposed to publish the Ministry of Civil Aviation Bill?

Mr. Eden: I understand it will be published to-morrow.

MISSING AIRCRAFT (AIR MINISTRY PASSENGERS)

The Prime Minister: I deeply regret to have to inform the House that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Commander Brabner), Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air, who was travelling by air to Canada, is reported missing, together with the following senior Air Ministry officials and public servants:

Air Marshal Sir Peter Drummond, Air Member for Training;
Sir John Abraham, Deputy Under-Secretary of State, at the Air Ministry;
Mr. H. A. Jones, Director of Public Relations;

Mr. Twentyman, a senior official of the Ministry of Food;
Mr. Robinson, Private Secretary to Commander Brabner;
Flight-Lieutenant Plum, Personal Assistant to Sir Peter Drummond.
Commander Brabner was to represent His Majesty's Government at the ceremonies attending the formal termination of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan in the Dominion. The aircraft, a Liberator of Transport Command, manned by a crew of exceptional experience, left England for the Azores on Monday night. It was last heard of when at 6 a.m. on Tuesday morning it sent a routine message to the Azores. At 5 a.m. it had reported its estimated time of arrival in the Azores as 9 a.m. The weather for the flight was favourable, Air-sea rescue searches were promptly initiated from the Azores and re-inforced from Coastal Command. A warship is also taking part in the search under Admiralty direction. Wreckage is reported near the aircraft's intended track, but so far no traces of survivors have been found.
I am sure the House will feel deeply the loss of these distinguished officers and in particular, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the cutting short of the bright career which was opening before the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe. He had gained the Distinguished Service Order and the Distinguished Service Cross in this war as a Member of the House of Commons, a distinction which I think is unique. Now his abilities, and the hopes that we had, have been cut short. His wife and the other relatives have been informed, and I am sure the House will wish me to express our deep sympathy with them in their great anxiety.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give favourable consideration to setting aside a day in the future, after Easter, for a discussion of this and other calamities that have happened?

The Prime Minister: We had a Debate the other day on the Adjournment on this subject, and I should hesitate to mortgage our time any further in the future. The crew were specially picked. The machine was the "Commando," the very one in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I myself have made so


many journeys. I cannot think anything short of the most intense care and effort have been taken, but such journeys cannot be wholly free from an element of danger.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has not been any Debate on this subject in the House since the last report upon the recent accident to two hon. Members, and that there is considerable perturbation in the minds of hon. Members about this? Hon. Members do not want any particular consideration, but at least they do want some assurance that these matters are receiving full consideration.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Will there be a court of inquiry into this accident at the earliest possible moment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course there will be a court of inquiry.

Mr. Bellenģer: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last assurance and the fact that we have lost some Members of the House in these tragic circumstances, would it not be possible to associate a committee of this House with the inquiries that are to take place into this accident and to have some investigation other than a departmental one into the causes of the-se recurring accidents?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the House will be advised to cast full responsibility for these essentially technical matters upon the Government of the day.

ANGLO-FRENCH FINANCIAL AGREEMENT

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am happy to inform the House that an Anglo-French Financial Agreement was signed in Paris yesterday by Monsieur Pleven, the French Minister of Finance, and myself. The text is being issued as a Command Paper and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The object of the Agreement is to develop to the maximum commercial exchanges between the franc area and the sterling area and to facilitate current settlement, especially commercial payments, between the two areas, and also to reach a final settlement of the various financial claims which have arisen between the two Governments since the beginning

of the war. The Agreement provides for a method of settlement of any deficit in the current transactions between the sterling area and the franc area as on 28th February, 1946, partly by payment in gold and partly by other means. It provides for the settlement of general monetary relations between the two areas and for their regulation by the technical provisions set out in the Annexe to the Agreement and for the method of dealing with sterling arising out of transactions prior to the coming into force of the Agreement. Provision is made for the mutual waiver of a number of claims by one Government against the other arising out of the prosecution of the war, including those in connection with the transfer to His Majesty's Government in June, 1940, of the Munition Contracts in course of execution in the United States of America for the account of the French Government. His Majesty's Government undertake to make available to the French Government free of cost goods and services to a total value of £45 million. These goods will include the property of His Majesty's Government produced or acquired for war purposes and will be used to a large extent to meet French civilian needs. The French Government undertake to refund to His Majesty's Government the dollar payments paid by His Majesty's Government in connection with the transfer of the French Munition Contracts in the United States of America in June, 1940. The Agreement provides also for the exchange of information on the lines already announced.

Mr. Shinwell: While expressing great satisfaction at the conclusion of this Agreement, which I think everyone will regard as desirable, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any truth in the report in one of the newspapers that as a result of the Agreement we are to import into this country large quantities of French wine? Is that the intention? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are much more concerned about the exchange of necessary goods than of luxuries?

Sir J. Anderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that while the Agreement will facilitate commercial transactions on both sides there is no provision in it to specify particular classes of goods.

Captain Plugge: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this Agreement will


affect or assist any claims made by British subjects for property in France either seized or destroyed by the Vichy Government?

Sir J. Anderson: I suggest that hon. Members might like to see the Agreement before asking questions upon it.

EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR, O.M.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Mr. Speaker, shortly after David Lloyd George first took Cabinet office as President of the Board of Trade, the Liberals who had been in eclipse for 20 years obtained in January, 1906, an overwhelming majority over all other parties. They were independent of the Irish; the Labour Party was in its infancy; the Conservatives were reduced to little more than 100. But this moment of political triumph occurred in a period when the aspirations of 19th century Liberalism had been largely achieved. Most of the great movements and principles of Liberalism had become the common property of enlightened men all over the civilised world. The chains had been struck from the slave; a free career was open to talent; the extension of the franchise was moving irresistibly forward; the advance in education was rapid and continuous, not only in this island but in many lands. Thus at the moment when the Liberal Party became supreme, the great and beneficent impulses which had urged them forward were largely assuaged by success. Some new and potent conception had to be found by those who were called into power.
It was Lloyd George who launched the Liberal and Radical forces of this country effectively into the broad stream of social betterment and social security along which all modern parties now steer. There was no man so gifted, so eloquent, so forceful, who knew the life of the people so well. His warm heart was stirred by the many perils which beset the cottage homes, the health of the bread winner, the fate of his widow, the nourishment and upbringing of his children, the meagre and haphazard provision of medical treatment and sanatoria, and the lack of any organised accessible medical service of a kind worthy of the age from which the mass of the wage earners and the poor suffered. All this excited his wrath. Pity and compassion lent their powerful wings. He knew the terror with which old age threatened the

toiler—that after a life of exertion he could be no more than a burden at the fireside and in the family of a struggling son. When I first became Lloyd George's friend and active associate, now more than 40 years ago, this deep love of the people, the profound knowledge of their lives and of the undue and needless pressures under which they lived, impressed itself indelibly upon my mind.
Then there was his dauntless courage, his untiring energy, his oratory, persuasive, provocative, now grave now gay. His swift, penetrating, comprehensive mind was always grasping at the root, or what he thought to be the root, of any question. His eye ranged ahead of the obvious. He was always hunting in the field beyond. I have often heard people come to him with a plan, and he would say "That is all right, but what happens when we get over the bridge? What do we do then?"
In his prime, Sir, his power, his influence, his initiative were unequalled in the land. He was the champion of the weak and the poor. These were great days. Nearly two generations have passed. Most people are unconscious of how much their lives have been shaped by the laws for which Lloyd George was responsible. Health insurance and old age pensions were the first large-scale State-conscious efforts to set a balustrade along the crowded causeway of the people's life and, without pulling down the structures of society, to fasten a lid over the abyss into which vast numbers used to fall, generation after generation, uncared for and indeed unnoticed. Now we move forward confidently into larger and more far-reaching applications of these ideas. I was his lieutenant in those bygone days, and shared in a minor way in the work. I have lived to see long strides taken, and being taken, and going to be taken, on this path of insurance by which the vultures of utter ruin are driven from the dwellings of the nations. The stamps we lick, the roads we travel, the system of progressive taxation, the principal remedies that have yet been used against unemployment—all these to a very great extent were part not only of the mission but of the actual achievement of Lloyd George; and I am sure that as time passes his name will not only live but shine on account of the great, laborious, constructive work he did for the social and domestic life of our country.
When the calm, complacent, self-satisfied tranquillities of the Victorian era had exploded into the world convulsions and wars of the terrible Twentieth Century, Lloyd George had another part to play on which his fame will stand with equal or even greater firmness. Although unacquainted with the military arts, although by public repute a pugnacious pacifist, when the life of our country was in peril he rallied to the war effort and cast aside all other thoughts or aims. He was the first to discern the fearful shortages of ammunition and artillery and all the other appliances of war which would so soon affect, and in the case of Imperial Russia mortally affect, the warring nations on both sides. He saw it before anyone. Here I must say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) was a truthful and vigilant prophet and guide in all that information which we received. He was our military representative in Russia. But it was Mr. Lloyd George who fixed on these papers, brought them forth before the eyes of the Cabinet and induced action to be taken with the utmost vigour possible at that late hour.
Lloyd George left the Exchequer, when the Coalition Government was formed, for the Ministry of Munitions. Here he hurled himself into the mobilisation of British industry. In 1915 he was building great war factories that could not come into operation for two years. There was the usual talk about the war being over in a few months, but he did not hesitate to plan on a vast scale for two years ahead. It was my fortune to inherit the output of those factories in 1917—the vast, overflowing output which came from them. Presently Lloyd George seized the main power in the State and the headship of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seized?"] Seized. I think it was Carlyle who said of Oliver Cromwell:
He coveted the place; perhaps the place was his.
He imparted immediately a new surge of strength, of impulse, far stronger than anything that had been known up to that time, and extending over the whole field of war-time Government, every part of which was of equal interest to him.
I have already written about him at this time, when I watched him so closely and enjoyed his confidence and admired

him so much, and I have recorded two characteristics of him which seemed to me invaluable in those days: first, his power to live in the present yet without taking short views; and, secondly, his power of drawing from misfortune itself the means of future success. All this was illustrated by the successful development of the war; by the adoption of the convoy system, which he enforced upon the Admiralty and by which the U-boats were defeated; by the unified command on the Western Front which gave Marshal Foch the power to lead us all to victory; and in many other matters which form a part of the story of those sombre and tremendous years the memory of which for ever abides with me, and to which I have often recurred in thought during our present second heavy struggle against German aggression, now drawing towards its victorious close.
Thus the statesman and guide whose gentle passing in the fullness of his years we mourn to-day served our country, our island and our age both faithfully and well in peace and in war. His long life was, from almost the beginning to almost the end, spent in political strife and controversy. He aroused intense and sometimes needless antagonisms. He had fierce and bitter quarrels at various times with all the parties. He faced undismayed the storms of criticism and hostility. In spite of all obstacles, including those he raised himself, he achieved his main purposes. As a man of action, resource and creative energy he stood, when at his zenith, without a rival. His name is a household word throughout our Commonwealth of Nations. He was the greatest Welshman which that unconquerable race has produced since the age of the Tudors. Much of his work abides, some of it will grow greatly in the future, and those who come after us will find the pillars of his life's toil upstanding, massive and indestructible; and we ourselves, gathered here to-day, may indeed be thankful that he voyaged with us through storm and tumult with so much help and guidance to bestow.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think my right hon. Friend has spoken in an unparalleled way and expressed the feelings of the House. We mourn the passing of a great Parliamentarian, and I am certain my right hon. Friend has expressed, irrespective of


party, the views held by the House about the great Mr. Lloyd George, as I still prefer to call him. He was a man of dynamic personality, a great and generous friend and a very bitter foe, a man who had a gift of repartee unknown in this House for a long time—I am glad to say that I never suffered under it at its worst—he was a doughty debater, a man fearless in pursuit of all the causes in which he was interested. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend paid a tribute to his background. He was the friend of the oppressed. He was born with that Welsh Radical Nonconformist tradition which meant a good deal to him. Always his mind came back to the things that mattered to the life of the common people. I believe he will go down in history for two things. My right hon. Friend has referred to both of them. He will go down in history as a great war leader. I do not want to say anything about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but Britain in the two great wars has been profoundly thankful for the war leaders that it found. Long may it be before my right hon. Friend may have to be referred to in the House, but in the days of the last great war it is undoubtedly true that but for Mr. Lloyd George's vivid personality, his strength of character, his foresight, his understanding of the issues that were at stake, Britain might have fallen upon more evil days than we fell on in May, 1940. That is a great thing. This is not a question of party. It is not a question of politics. It is a question of paying a tribute to a great man who played a great part in our national life.
I should like to say something about another aspect of his life with which my right hon. Friend before the last great war was associated. I am not going to be controversial. My right hon. Friend referred to the exhaustion of the Victorian era, yet in that Parliament of 1906 the powerful character of the late Mr. Lloyd George did much to make that Government the success that it was in inaugurating and establishing the great system of social and industrial legislation on which we now build. I would pay my late right hon. Friend that tribute, that in those days before the war, when we got out of the carelessness of the Victorian era, when we passed from the rather slipshod point of view, when we were escaping from a certain amount of hypocrisy, at a time when we were beginning to learn that poverty

was not due to the vices of the poor, Mr. Lloyd George was an inspiring force in that Liberal Government, and much we owe to him, and much the working people of the country owe to him. I should like, speaking for the organised working people of this country, to read to the House a tribute paid yesterday morning by the National Council of Labour, for whom I speak to-day, the most representative body of people in the country:
The Council places on record its appreciation of the contribution to social and industrial legislation made by Earl Lloyd-George in the course of his long Parliamentary career and his achievements of British statesmanship at critical times in the history of the British people.
As my right hon. Friend said, Earl Lloyd-George has died in the fullness of years. We grieve for his relatives. I think we must grieve particularly for those two colleagues in the House who have been bereaved. Our hearts go out to them. We share their sorrow.

Sir Percy Harris: I am intervening with some diffidence after the magnificent tribute, both in form and character a model of oratory, made by the Prime Minister to Lloyd George. If I do intervene, it is because, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, Lloyd George was a great Liberal and a member of our party. He entered the House of Commons half a century ago, when the dominant political figure was Mr. Gladstone. As "L. G." himself told some of us at a private gathering, in those days the issues were mainly political issues, like Home Rule, the extension of the franchise and the status of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister reminded us how, in the 20th century, the problems before Parliament changed, but that was largely due to the dynamic force and personality of character of Lloyd George himself. He took up the cause of the common man. He laid the foundation of our social legislation, which now in this Parliament we hope to complete. His success was due to his understanding of social and economic problems and his ability to make them live when he brought them before the public. He stimulated controversy, but yet his energy and personality managed to translate his ideas into legislation.
But I think the best proof of his genius came at the outbreak of the war in 1914.


He who had little experience of international affairs or of war service, threw himself into them with all his energy and carved out victory in spite of all the difficulties. That has been so brilliantly said by the Prime Minister that I have nothing to add to the picture, but I should like to refer for a few moments to the last 20 years of his life. He produced four remarkable volumes of biography, perhaps one of the best pictures ever painted of war. He also found time to devote his energy to studying the problems of unemployment and the restoration of agriculture. It must have been some satisfaction to him to see his ideas taken over by the Government and embodied in their White Paper. There is something rather magnificent about the ending of his days. After a life of over four score years he retired to the village where he spent his early days and where he expressed a desire to be buried. Some of us would have liked to see his ashes laid in Westminster Abbey, but there is something magnificent in his body being buried near to the mountains and streams to which he was so devoted. We here, his friends and colleagues who feel that it is an honour to have known and worked with him, are satisfied that his memory will always remain treasured by his countrymen.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: On behalf of the National Liberals and myself I should like to pay a tribute to the memory of the statesman whom we mourn. Other speakers have referred to his great career as a war leader or as a Radical reformer. I should like in a sentence or two to give a more personal impression, as one who came in close contact with him as one of his private secretaries in the Coalition days. It was a great privilege to a young man to be in that position, and to have an opportunity of meeting great statesmen day by day. Those were the days of a Coalition which had to face all the difficult problems of the transition from war to peace—problems of a similar nature to those which, I imagine, will face any Government in the future. What impressed me most in Mr. Lloyd George was his infinite resourcefulness, his resiliency of mind and his complete and utter absorption in the tasks that lay to hand. If he found the frontal attack on a problem blocked, to use a military metaphor, he would send his armour round the flank

searching for a weak spot. He was an empiricist. He was never afraid to make an experiment.
May I tell one story which will illustrate his mistrust of dogma and rigid belief? He told me that once in the village where he lived there were two sects of one denomination and the members of either sect would not speak to the other. One believed in baptism in the name of the Father, and the other believed in baptism into the name of the Father. Mr. Lloyd George added: "I believed passionately in one and I would have given my life to the cause, but for the moment I forget which sect it was." It was this resourcefulness and fertility of mind that enabled him to see the fundamentals of our economic and, political problems. The Prime Minister has referred to several contributions he made in his amazing career. May I mention one which, with my experience of the Dominions Office, I shall always associate with him? I think it was he who first saw the real structure of the British, Commonwealth as a number of sister Dominions, each self-governing and with complete automony. It was he who first initiated, in 1917–18, the experiment of the Imperial War Cabinet, and he fought, at the Peace Conference, for the international status of the Dominions.
The other great impression made on my mind as a young man was that of a great human personality, throbbing with life, overflowing with spirits and with an infectious gaiety of mind. He loved youth. He loved the company of young men, particularly those entering public life, and he gave serious attention to their views. Mr. Lloyd George was always a listener. What impressed me most was the fact that a man with his remarkable career, who played one of the leading parts, if not the leading part, on the stage of public life and in every conflict and controversy in which he revelled had not in his nature and make-up one atom of vanity. The only thing that interested him was to tackle the problem before him, and he never considered his own advancement in relation to it. That is why I think that, though he never held office since 1922, he still remained a potent force in public life. I believe he was completely happy at Churt because he put all his amazing energy and resource into showing the nation a great experiment of how, by scientific cultivation and culture, he could reclaim


the barren wastes of heather and sand and turn them into some of the most beautiful and flourishing apple orchards of the country. With the passing of Earl Lloyd-George there is the passing of an era, and we shall never see his like again.

Mr. A. Bevan: The House will think it fitting on this occasion if I, as chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, associated that party and, if I may say so, Wales, with what has been said so eloquently this afternoon. We have lost our most distinguished member and Wales her greatest son. I knew him, of course, merely towards the end, but I knew him intimately, and I was the recipient of his advice and of his encouragement on many occasions. I also, if I might remind the House, had some exchanges with him, and he was, like the Prime Minister, a most formidable and even terrifying debater, but he possessed what the Prime Minister also possesses, and that is the generosity of greatness. Despite the sharp exchanges, his spirit was sufficiently urbane to enable him to forgive everything afterwards and to be good friends. His name and the name of Wales are inextricably associated in men's minds, and neither has lost by the association. What the nation fathered in him the man brought to fulfilment in his career. The qualities that Lloyd George possessed we like to behove are the qualities of Wales—quick imagination, eager and ardent spirit and an insatiable curiosity. He never seemed, no matter where he was, to be tired of learning new things and meeting new people, and I believe that it was this insatiable curiosity, this ability to see things freshly, which was mainly responsible for some of his success.
Perhaps the House will permit me to say this, because I am anxious not to say anything that may appear to be controversial. When Lloyd George was denied office towards the end of his life by a concurrence of hostile political currents, I thought, as I watched him during those years, and at the same time watched the Prime Minister, who also for some time was out of office, that it must cause some of us to feel extremely humble, because there were two of the most eminent and brilliant Parliamentarians of this era denied employment by the State. It shows for us a moral—although perhaps it is not one to urge on this occasion—that even the most superabundant personal qualities are irrelevant if not associated

with great mass machines. Lloyd George was a very democratically-minded man. He was first and last a democrat. He was at home in the village as well as in the central councils of the State. It was because of this universality of his that his speeches were always informed and enlivened by concrete metaphors. He always hated the tired phrase or the abstract noun, and if anyone wishes to learn the art of persuasive oratory he could not do better than read his speeches, because, although they may lack the classic form, every metaphor comes with an impact on the mind. At the same time, David Lloyd George was a patriot. His love of Wales was deep and passionate, but it was also associated with a cosmopolitan quality. The larger embraced the smaller. His patriotism was not exclusive. It functioned at the level of universal tolerance, and that, I think, was one of his most charming characteristics. He was able to give a universal significance to the local and the immediate because his preoccupation was as great in the smaller as in the larger. We ourselves in the Welsh Parliamentary Party mourn his passing. We have lost in his death the most iridescent figure that ever illumined the British political scene.

Viscountess Astor: If the words of my mouth could express the meditations of my heart at this moment, I could speak with the tongue of angels in paying tribute to that great man, Lloyd George. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me a few moments to speak about him. First I want to say how grateful the women of my generation were to him because, even in their darkest hour when they were fighting for the suffrage, Mr. Lloyd George backed them and thought they were worthy of citizenship. Well do I remember Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Arthur James Balfour, both champions of the women's cause, leading the first woman up the aisle of the old House of Commons. This woman could not help feeling that though they had wanted women to enter the race, they were slightly embarrassed at having to lead in the winner. After I had been in the House some time I understood and respected their shyness, and I also respected them for that quality which Henry James said was a British characteristic, that "dauntless decency" when


they had to perform a task which I do not think they ever expected they would have to perform.
I want to talk of the characteristics that seemed to me to form the greatness of Lloyd George. Of all men I have ever known he was freer than any from personal vanity. I shall never forget the night after the armistice, when a few of us dined with him in Downing Street. As we came out of the dining room I looked at an appalling oil painting of him, and I asked him why on earth he did not get John Sargent to do a good one of him. He replied quite simply: "I would like to have asked him to paint me, but I am told he is tired of painting portraits, so I never asked him." It never entered his head, even at that supreme moment of his life, that he would be asking Sargent to paint the world's foremost figure. There was no vanity there.
Secondly, there was a quality he had which we all knew and realised. He was more free from "side" and snobbishness than any man I have ever met in public life. He was far too great a gentleman in the real sense of the word either to be a snob or to be class conscious. We know how he hated and fought inherited privileges, and some of us helped him. Yet he never hated the privileged. He was far too great either to hate or to fear. That always struck me as unique. He might have so easily in these bitter fights carried a little hate in his heart, but I never saw it. I should not have called Mr. Lloyd George a spiritually-minded man, but yet he loved and respected goodness, and he certainly recognised it. He always seemed to me to be a man who had walked with men who had walked with God. He was a great Nonconformist, and he never conformed to the shams and shibboleths of this wicked world.
We all know his passionate love of mankind, and that made him hate war with all his heart. I remember his showing me soon after the war a letter from General Plumer after he had entered Cologne. Lloyd George had a great admiration for him and said he was one of his doughtiest generals. General Plumer wrote that the battle was over and the victory won, and he hoped very much, after seeing some of the conditions of the children in Germany, that the

Allies' plan would not be to starve children. If so, he said he would ask to be relieved of his task. Mr. Lloyd George was delighted with that, because he always knew that the wisdom of man was far better than the weapons of warfare. Yet no one was a bonnier fighter. I always thought that the secret of his vitality during those years of war was the same as that of our present Prime Minister; he took his job and not himself seriously. He, like the Prime Minister to-day, realised that he was fighting the good fight, and, like the Prime Minister again, he fought it with all his might. When the day was finished he, as the Prime Minister does, went to sleep and slept peacefully. Mr. Lloyd George was further like the Prime Minister; he was not a weary Titan, and we ought to be very grateful to both of them for that.
Lastly, Mr. Lloyd George was, above all public men I have ever known—and by public men I do not mean only politicians—the most simple, the most natural and the easiest to talk to. The limelight never blinded his vision. He will ever live as a symbol of British democracy. He wanted freedom and a better world for all mankind, and the whole world is better for his fight for the things he thought right.
It is curious that we sometimes hear him spoken of as a common man. He was a most uncommon man. The Americans speak of Abraham Lincoln as a common man, but there has never been any other man like Abraham Lincoln, and if there had been other men like these two uncommon men, I do not believe we should be at war to-day. The common men of both countries believe in democracy, and have every reason to be grateful to these two great men.
We can thank God that Lloyd George passed away peacefully in his sleep, but I cannot help thinking that when he slipped through the portals of this weary world he would rather have slipped through from the doors of his beloved House of Commons than from those of their Lordships. It is hard to speak of Mr. Lloyd George without great emotion. Nobody will ever be able to describe accurately what he was but I, like other people, feel that if democracy is on a sound footing in this country at this time, that has as much to do with Mr. Lloyd George as with any single British man who has ever lived, and


I am proud of my friendship with him and am grateful for all that he did for the causes which he loved so well.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I would be well content and so, I think, might this House, to leave the matter where it has been put by the speech of the Prime Minister and the speeches of those who have followed him this afternoon; but I have been asked by a number of independent Members to make a very brief contribution associating them with what has been said. After all, at any time in the last 20 years, Lloyd George might have appropriated the title, which was once applied to Cromwell, "the great Independent." The tributes that have been paid so far have laid emphasis on the successes of that astonishing career. When he was at the zenith of his power I never knew him, except as a name and an inspiration. When I came into this House in 1929, he had already passed, by some six years, the peak point of his career and he was, till the end of his life, in the political wilderness. Of all fates to impose upon a great man, none could be so harsh or so melancholy as that he should be condemned to watch the things that he has fought for successfully in his time, dissipated and squandered, while he is in the wilderness, and facing advancing age. That fate England, in my lifetime, has put upon its two greatest sons. In the years between the great wars, the period that I describe as the ignoble years and the period that history will surely characterise as the locust years, that fate was imposed both on the present Prime Minister and upon Mr. Lloyd George. When this war came, the Prime Minister was young enough and strong enough to set about the business of redeeming the years which the locusts had eaten, but about the head of Mr. Lloyd George there were already gathering the shadows of oncoming death.
I want to pay tribute not merely to his political greatness but to his personal kindness. In that 1929–31 Parliament, as older Members of the House may remember, I ocasionally had difficulty with my then party, the Labour Party, and I shall never forget the encouragement and kindness of Mr. Lloyd George. He said two things to me that I will never forget: "Don't let 'em get you down"—I think I can claim that I did not—and "Vote according to your conscience, and justify

yourself to your constituents." Those words ought to be put up in the voting Lobbies on both sides of the House, as they provide a basis for a free Parliament in a free country.
I am glad that they are not going to bury him in Westminster Abbey, under the shadow of Westminster, with its intrigues. I am glad they are going to bury him in the shadows of the mountains of Wales, with its simple faith. We shall not find marble in the world white enough to put on his tomb. He will live in the memory and in the hearts of the people whom he loved so greatly and for whom he worked so well, and his epitaph should be as short as his life was long: "This was a man."

Mr. Georģe Lambert: It is with some emotion that I rise to add a word or two to the tributes that have been paid to the man whom I knew so well. Mr. Lloyd George came into the House of Commons in 1890 and I came here in 1891, both at by-elections. I had an experience that he never had; I was once defeated. He was a prophet in his own country. He had a passionate devotion to Wales. I remember in the very early days when he got into conflict with that awesome figure, Mr. Gladstone, on the subject of Welsh Disestablishment.
The Prime Minister has paid a most eloquent tribute to him. I want to point out one angle which might be a little different. I want to say nothing about his great duel during the South African War, or, when he became a national figure, over the Education Act, 1902. Then, from being a Welshman, he became a great national figure, and he was in demand all over the country. May I illustrate this point? I was walking with him down one of the corridors here, where the lockers are, and he opened one of the lockers, and out came a litter of prepaid telegrams. He had not the time to answer them. He was a poor man. He had to earn his living. He became, as the Prime Minister has well said, the most outstanding figure in this House, and not only here but in the world. I am always proud to have belonged to this House. It shows what a House of distinction this is, because it recognises merit.
Take Mr. Lloyd George's great performances in the last war. He was put into a commanding position. I agree with


the Leader of the Opposition that Britain was especially fortunate that at the time of crisis in 1918 it produced a man. If I may be permitted to say so, it produced a man again in 1940. Mr. Lloyd George came to a commanding position. He owed nothing to birth and to wealth, but achieved everything by his native ability and his perseverance. What an example that is to young men, that they can come into this Assembly and rise to the highest and most commanding position, by dint of ability and perseverance. During his stormy, turbulent career—and it was stormy and turbulent—I remember the great Budget days, as the Prime Minister can remember them. This is a tepid and formal Assembly compared with the House of Commons in those days. During the time of buffets and blows, Mr. Lloyd George was always able to return to a sheltering home and to a welcome by an appreciative and loving comrade. I cannot help thinking that he owed much of his success to Dame Margaret Lloyd George, that maternal female, proud of her husband and proud still more that she lived to see her son and her daughter leaving their mark upon the House of Commons. Wales has lost its most distinguished citizen, Parliament a great Parliamentarian and the Empire a devoted public servant.

Mrs. Gazalet Keir: Having been privileged to know "L.G." in the intimacy of his family life for the last 26 years, I should like to pay my tribute to him as a wonderful friend, because that is what he always was to me. Apart from the greatness and glory of his unique life, those who were fortunate enough to be numbered among his personal friends will always remember his simplicity and naturalness. He never needed to turn on his charm, brilliance and kindness for a special person or occasion, because they were an integral part of the man himself. No matter who you were, important or quite insignificant, "L.G." was always the same. I shall never forget the advice he gave to the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and myself when we decided on a political career. "Never, never," he said, "allow yourselves to grow bitter and never jog backwards." Although "L.G." could, on suitable occasions, bite with his oratory, he

had absolutely no bitterness in his nature. It is indeed a privilege and an honour to have known such a man.

Mr. Gallacher: As a Communist, I would like to add my tribute to what has already been said. It is a little over 4o years ago in the great days of which the Prime Minister spoke, that I first heard Lloyd George speak, and even now I can recall the throb and the thrill of that great meeting. Courage—it was there in abundance; eloquence—his tongue was like a silver trumpet or a flashing sword. This is not the time to recall old controversies, but it may be permissible to say that when others were not so kindly disposed towards him Glasgow opened its heart to him and gave him a welcome. Thirty years ago, I met him under different circumstances in Glasgow. But no matter how bitter and deep the dispute might be, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will join with me in saying that in the conversations we had he was always courteous, understanding and considerate.
In 1920 I met Lenin. I was a very difficult person to get on with, and Lenin advised me—I remember it so well—to study David Lloyd George. He held the opinion that David Lloyd George was the greatest political leader this country had known. Much has been said about the part he played in the first world war. It is true that his name is interwoven with every gigantic effort of that time, but we should also remember the effort he made in trying to preserve peace, and prevent this present terrible war from coming upon Europe and the world. Eagerly, anxiously, he sought for understanding and alliance with the Soviet Union. He recognised what a mighty combination that would be in maintaining peace. In this he had a common bond, one of many, with the present Prime Minister. In the strange drama of life he played many parts, great parts, always with the fervour and intensity of a son of the people, for it was the common people that bore him. It was the suffering of the common people that called him forth to battle against poverty and neglect. But the drama for him is ended. Others must take up the burden and the task. Very quietly, very softly, after all the storm and strife, the curtain has fallen. May he rest in gentle peace.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Seventh Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 2) Order, 1945 (S.R. & 0., 1945, No. 259), a copy of which was presented on 20th March, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to it on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVILEGES

Report from the Committee of Privileges, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 63.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Distribution of Industry Bill): Sir Peter Bennett, Mr. Henry Brooke, Mr. W. J. Brown, Dr. Dalton, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Furness, Colonel Greenwell, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Cyril Lloyd, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Peake,

Commander Prior, Sir Alexander Russell, Mr. Robert Taylor, Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Westwood.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Craik Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Lieutenant-Colonel Dower.

BILL REPORTED

WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report, to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BILLS PRESENTED

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL

"to regulate the procedure to be followed in connection with statutory orders required by any future enactment to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure; to apply such procedure to certain orders made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944; and to enable such procedure to be applied to certain other orders"; presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Willink and the Solicitor-General; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 39.]

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION BILL

"to make provision for the appointment and functions of a Minister of Civil Aviation, and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Sir Stafford Cripps, supported by the Prime Minister, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. W. S. Morrison and Mr. Lennox-Boyd; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 40.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet To-morrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. Eden.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising To-morrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 10th April.—[Mr. Eden.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Eden.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.

Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Peake.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 46, at end, insert new Clause A (Repayment of loans made by Public Works Loan Commissioners).
(1) Nothing in any enactment requiring that, where a sum borrowed by a local authority is repayable by instalments (whether of principal alone or of principal and interest combined), the first instalment shall be paid within a specified period from the date of borrowing shall be taken to prevent the first instalment of a sum so borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners being made repayable within any longer period authorised under Section 11 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875 (which provides for the fixing of a period not exceeding five years).
(2) Nothing in any enactment requiring that, where a sum borrowed by a local authority is repayable by such instalments, the instalments shall be equal and periodical shall be taken to prevent the Treasury from postponing, under Section 37 of the said Act, the payment of any instalment of a sum so borrowed from the said Commissioners, or to prevent the said Commissioner§ or the local authority from agreeing to the postponement on any terms authorised by the Treasury under that Section.
(3) Where, under either of the said Sections or otherwise, payment of interest on any sum borrowed by a local authority from the said Commissioners is postponed (whether the interest would, but for the postponement, have been payable separately from the principal or as part of an instalment of principal and interest combined), the Commissioners and the local authority may agree that it shall be a condition of the postponement that all or any of the interest accruing during the period of the postponement shall, at the end of that period, be added to the principal and bear interest and be repaid accordingly.
In this subsection references to postponing the payment of interest shall be construed as including references to arranging that the interval between the borrowing and the first payment of interest is longer than the interval between subsequent payments of interest, and references to the period of postponement as including references to the first mentioned interval.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I ought in a few words to explain the object of the new Clause. It is to bring the borrowing powers of the local authorities into line with the lending powers of the Public Works Loan Board. There may be cases particularly affecting the smaller authorities where, having borrowed under the Bill, they are carrying out development or redevelopment schemes under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and these schemes may, in the early stages, be unremunerative or unproductive of revenue. Under the new Clause it will be possible for repayments of interest and principal to be postponed with the consent of the Treasury and the Board.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special entry.]

WAGES COUNCILS BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Read a Second time, Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Committee upon Tuesday, 10th April.

LIBERATED COUNTRIES (SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

4.37 p.m.

Earl Winterton: We have, in the course of to-day's proceedings, very properly paid a tribute to a great figure who has left this House, and who has left our midst. I would ask attention to another matter, that is, how to succour the living—because I do not think it is going too far to say that that is the point at issue—over a large portion of liberated territories in Western Europe. I cannot refrain from saying, as one who had the most deep affection and admiration for Earl Lloyd-George, that I feel his spirit is with us to-day in this Debate, because there is no subject in which,


throughout his long Parliamentary life, he took more interest than that of how to help those who were in dire need of help. It will be quite impossible to go over the whole field of the conditions of Western Europe, of the situation that exists there to-day, and of the situation that may arise there. For example, there would be no time to talk of the case the enemy countries, but I may say in passing that in my opinion recent events in Germany, the tremendous successes of our Armies there, have exacerbated rather than diminished the problem with which we are faced, because without getting off the main line of my argument, I would like to point out that the immediate power of Germany to produce food and goods is being rapidly destroyed, her civilian population, at any rate that portion which is not being deported, very properly, to Russia, or killed by our bombs, will soon be largely wandering homeless and without food. It is quite certain that the Allies will feel a great responsibility in this matter after the occupation of Germany. Nor have I time to-day to talk on the subject of the refugee problem. Indeed, it would perhaps be improper for me to do so on this occasion because I perform, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, rather important functions in connection with refugees on the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees, of which I am Chairman. I will take the opportunity of saying, as a purely personal matter, in parenthesis, that I am in complete agreement with the policy of the Government on the question of refugees, and I have no criticism to offer.
I propose to confine myself to the case of the liberated countries of Europe. Those of us who are interested in this matter and who have, in private conversation, discussed the questions at issue, put forward four contentions. First, we say that the economic condition of freed Western countries is very serious. I think it is unnecessary, and would only delay the House and take up the time which is much needed for the many hon. Members who wish to take part in this Debate, to give chapter and verse for that statement, but it is a statement of fact, not mere assertion. I make no secret of the fact, I have nothing to be ashamed of, as an ex-Minister and a Privy Councillor, in saying that I have been in consultation

with some very high Allied authorities. They have told me that I am justified in using that phrase, that the economic conditions of the freed Western countries is very serious, indeed, that it is resulting in malnutrition, and is sowing a possible crop of illness, tuberculosis, all sorts of deficiency diseases among the children of these countries.
Secondly, my contention is that this state of affairs means much present human suffering and future political danger and trouble. Thirdly, a great responsibility rests upon the United States and ourselves in the matter, since we command practically all external air and sea transport and, for military reasons, most of the internal transport. I would like to give the House some figures which I have taken the trouble to check, so far as I am able to do so—no doubt the Lord President, who is to reply, will tell me if they are incorrect figures—which I think are very striking. The Allied Armies are using in France 40 per cent. of all the locomotives, 50 to 55 per cent. of all the railway wagons, trucks, etc., 25 per cent. of all the passenger coaches and 4o per cent. of all the coal allocated to the railways—that over and above the terrible destruction which our bombing has necessarily done to the French economic system.
I would mention some very significant statistics and facts in this connection. The French pre-war merchant marine was about 3,000,000 tons. About 2,000,000 tons have been lost or destroyed, chiefly by necessary Allied military action. Of the remaining 1,000,000 tons about 200,000 is being used for various purposes, such as the coastal traffic in North Africa. The remaining 800,000 tons is still in the Allied shipping pool and has not been released. Recently enough shipping has been employed, so I am informed, to import 400,000 tons of cocoa into the United States, but no shipping can be found to transport 40,000 tons of cocoa to France which is at present rotting in North Africa. Some hon. Members might say, of what interest are these domestic details? They are a matter of life and death to the French people, a question of whether an individual French man, woman and child has a chance of decent healthy life, or whether he or she has not. I am informed that shipping is found to carry sugar from Mauritius to England, but not to carry sugar from the neighbouring island of Reunion to France.
Vegetable oils are carried from Dakar to England, but not from Dakar to France. A large part of the sugar beet crop is in dumps in Northern France, and a lot of it is deteriorating for lack of lorries to carry it to the refineries. The sugar ration is about ¾lb. per month, when you can get it and that is not always. My fourth contention is that the question for decision is whether we and the United States have taken sufficient remedial measures; while admitting the supreme military needs of the moment, never forgetting that hungry people are never of a discriminatory nature, and that France, Belgium and Holland are democratic countries par excellence. If ordinary people there think that we and the United States have mishandled the food situation for military reasons, the war of liberation will cease to be as popular as it should be and the liberating Powers will fail to get the gratitude that they deserve. That is human nature especially with people who have been submitted to the torture and strain that these freed peoples have. It is no use deploring the result which will occur—we must try to prevent it.
I agree that there is such a thing as high-tension international relationship between Allies; and we ought in this Debate to avoid saying anything which might make the relationship between us and the United States less good than I think it is to-day, but I would earnestly say that there is also a relation between us and the freed countries that is equally important. We must never discriminate between Allies, and say that it would be unwise to say a frank thing about one Ally because that Ally is powerful, but that we can say it about another because it less powerful. The Foreign Secretary, whom I am glad to see here to-day—I understand that he has to leave shortly because of an important engagement—would be the first to agree that we must treat all our Allies on an equalitarian basis, and that it is wrong to say that you should refrain from criticising one Ally but that you may criticise another. It is because I do not want to increase any tension, which I hope does not exist now, between us and our major Ally that I propose to make my speech mainly interrogatory rather than critical.
I want to say a further word about—to use an overworked term—the psychological condition of the Western freed

countries. I think it is impossible to exaggerate the mental, physical, and I might say spiritual, strain that these people have gone through. They have these terrible memories of Boche tyranny. There are also bitter hatreds between individuals. Anyone who has gone to these countries knows that it is a common thing, when there is ill-will between neighbours, for one to go to the police to try to get the other arrested, on the ground that he or she was a collaborator; and generally there is the utmost internecine struggle. I do not want to be frivolous, but the term "Fascist" as applied in the one case by the Left to the Right, and the term "Communist" as applied in the other case by the Right to the Left, have become as meaningless as a certain vulgar term in this country. When you use that vulgar term in this country you do not mean that the person about whom you use it practises a certain vice, but that you do not like his face; and when someone is described as a Communist by those on the Right, or as a Fascist by those on the Left, it does not mean that that person is a Communist or a Fascist; but that the other people dislike his political point of view. So long as it goes no further that is a question of politics, but when it means trying to denounce people to the police, and getting them locked up, all civilised democratic life must be brought to an end if that policy is persisted in.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that most of those psychological troubles arise not only from the conditions of the occupation, but from the terrible lack of proper vitamins and nutrition for the inhabitants, which has reduced their physical powers and almost abolished their powers of moderation and judgment. I do not want to get on to a subject on which all the House may not agree, but I have a very strong feeling that the conditions in Western Europe are similar to those which my right hon. Friend referred to in Greece—and I supported him in that. What the ordinary people in the Western countries want is food, work at reasonable wages, housing, security for their businesses, freedom to choose their own Governments, and freedom for those Governments, when they are elected, to control the destiny of their countries. Especially important is the question of freedom for a Government to control the destiny of their own country. It is immensely important that the British and


United States military authorities should exercise no more control than is necessary for military reasons, because nothing arouses greater suspicion in the freed countries than the idea that this is an occupation not for military reasons but for other reasons. That idea is fantastic: no one in this country or in the United States would attribute such motives to the Higher Command in France; but it is essential to have the minimum of interference, and to see that what interference there is takes the form of allowing the people to have as much transport as possible, and as much freedom of movement for that transport as possible. Deny these conditions, and I am sure that bitter internal hatred will persist. Violent political solutions of an extreme kind, possibly even a dictatorship of the Left or of the Right, will be advocated, and perhaps achieved.
On the all-important subject of food and reasonable means of existence, some very wise words were used by a distinguished former Member of this House, Lord Templewood, at a luncheon the other day. Speaking with all the knowledge and authority gained from his recent post as Ambassador in a European country, he was reported in "The Times" as saying:
Unless we made a swift and united effort, Hitler, although broken in the military field, would win in the civil. His would be the last victory, the victory that would count, the victory of destruction. He believed Hitler could only be beaten in this battle by applying in the civil field the strategy that had been so successful in the military—by a war on two fronts, material and moral. On the material front a much more concerted movement was needed than we had to-day. They needed for Europe a supreme commander, an economic Eisenhower, aided by an economic general staff. Unless there was some European personality of the calibre of Nansen after the last war, the machine of Allied administration was now so complicated and the demands on it were so great that relief would continue to arrive too little and too late.
I should have thought that those figures which I gave—which I hope the Lord President will be able to deny, but which I fear are authoritative—very strongly supported what the noble Lord said. I would quote someone even more authoritative, a personal friend of mine, with whom I have some slight official personal relationship through his position in U.N.R.R.A. This is what Governor Lehmann, speaking

with all the authority that he commands, said in New York on 26th February:
It is absolutely essential that U.N.R.R.A. has adequate shipping, adequate supplies, inland transport, and the full co-operation of the Governments concerned in furnishing or distributing supplies.
It may be argued—and certainly no one would have any reason to object to it—that our French Allies are not especially good at organisation. The individualism of the French character does not, as a rule, make for good organisation in that country. But for all that, it is the fearful ravages of war, although they may have been superimposed on this characteristic of lack of organisational power in France, which have been mainly responsible for the trouble. As long as there is that lack of transport, as long as there is that lack of food, no country can possibly deal with its black market. Black markets flourish in countries of scarcity. Therefore, it would be no good any hon. Member saying that France should try to deal with the situation. They cannot deal with it until we give them the ships and the wagons. The other day I saw a gentleman who is the first Regional Commissioner in Normandy, and he said: "You may very likely have someone in your House, who has been to Normandy, saying, 'I do not understand what you are talking about. When I was in Normandy I saw plenty of butter in the houses.'" My French official friend said: "That may have been true at the time of the invasion. To-day, in so far as there is any stock there, it cannot be moved where it is wanted." He gave me the figures—I have not got them here, and I shall not attempt to give them, but they were calamitously small—of the number of trucks and lorries placed at his disposal. I was told by someone, whose name I must not give, because he is a serving officer in the British Army, who has special knowledge of the subject, that every word that this distinguished French gentleman told me was true. He said that even in Normandy, unless they got transport before the next harvest, there would be a terrible lack of necessaries; which at the worst might lead to starvation conditions and at the best would lead to a very low nutritional standard for people who have suffered from four years of war in their country.
It is necessary to make one comment, which, I hope, will not be regarded as wounding. I make myself fully re-


sponsible for this statement. Unquestionably the situation has been worsened by the confident belief of the military authorities, and presumably of the Governments of the United States and this country, that the war was going to be over earlier than it was. I must not be considered critical of any particular general if I say that the one respect in which the very famous men who lead our Armies are to be distinguished from the great Duke of Wellington—I think that in many respects they are equal to him in capacity—is that the Duke of Wellington never prophesied the end of the war. If people in the freed countries are given to understand that the war will be over by a certain date, it makes the situation worse. I believe that the great Allied Powers have been caught short: they believed that the war would be over sooner than it was, and that is one reason for this lack of transport.
I turn only for a moment to Belgium to say that the situation there is very much the same as in France. In Holland, I am informed on high authority, conditions in the liberated area are good, but in the occupied area they are calamitous. Speaking with all the power of, I would almost say, emotion which I can command, I want the House to realise the frightful conditions in Holland. I really would ask the Allied commanders—and I see no reason why it should not be done—to take note of this fact. Unless they can free Holland, even at some military cost, and at some cost in the time of the ending of the war, hundreds of thousands of Dutchmen will die of starvation in the next six weeks. The decision must rest with the Allied Governments and the Higher Command, but they have to realise that, if Holland remains occupied by the Germans and without help in the next six weeks or two months, hundreds of thousands of people will die of starvation. The information which has reached the Dutch Embassy here beggars description; and, incidentally, when Holland has been freed, it will be a major responsibility of the Allies to supply the food to feed its people.
My last point is this. Where is the food to come from, assuming that we deal with the transport situation? I have been talking mainly of transport. In France, if the transport is available, the question would be largely solved. It would not be so in Holland and it certainly will not

be so when it courts to a question of feeding a large number of former enemy civilians as well. Where is it to come from? It is a very big question, perhaps too big to be more than touched upon in this Debate; it requires a Debate in itself. I do not think we can spare any food from here at this moment, but I think the Government might allow something which has been suggested in Questions again and again, and towards which, I do not know why, the Food Minister takes up such a very rigid attitude. It is that friends of France shall be allowed to give up food coupons if those coupons can be used to send food to France. It would be a gesture that would greatly please the French people. It is not a matter to be approached with a rigid, red-tape attitude. I feel that this is something that would please the French people, who may be quick to anger but are equally quick to rise to great gestures.
I am going to mention a matter which I have pondered whether I ought to mention, but I feel I am justified in doing so only because it affects a country, in the shape of the United States, which has been in the very van of humanity and of succour to countries in distress. What that nation has done in famine relief in China through the American Red Cross is one of the most magnificent tales in the history of national philanthropy. Therefore, I do not think that the facts that I am going to mention would be considered by the great bulk of opinion in that country as facts which should not be stated at this Box. I am informed on high authority, which I hope is wrong but which I fear is not, that the U.S. Army rations are about twice those of the British in quantity. They are about four times those of the British civilian, and they are nine or ten times those of the average civilian in France. But what follows is even more striking in contrast.
I understand that, under the Hague Convention, when German prisoners are captured, the private soldier has to be given more or less the same rations as those received by the American G.I. A friend of mine, occupying a very important position, but whose name I cannot mention in this Debate, has said that another friend of his, a very high-ranking officer of the R.A.F., was present in one of the parishes or districts, French districts, on the border-of Germany, which


had just been liberated. There had been a fight in the village, in which a number of Free French who had joined up with the American Army took part, and they took a number of German prisoners. There was a scene of great rejoicing, with the Free French shaking the hands of the Americans. Then, their looks turned to blank astonishment and dismay—the looks of the F.F.I., the Maquis, and especially of the children—because they saw those German prisoners being handed out American Army rations and receiving oranges, cigarettes, meat in tins, and everything thing that they themselves had dreamt of but had not seen for four or five years.
I only mention these facts. I do not suggest a remedy. I think it would be out of Order to do so, and it would certainly be tactless; but I think they should be mentioned in the most public way they can be—in this House. If these facts are anything like true, they will make ill-feeling in France, not so much directed against us but against our Allies, which will take years to remove. I know something of rural France, and I know the suspicions which existed in France after the last war. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those suspicions were largely founded on the quite wrong belief that we were a wealthy country and had all we wanted, and that we thought the Germans, on the whole, better than the French and always treated the French worse than the Germans in the long run. Nothing could be more calculated to support that belief than this disparity between the rations which the German prisoners get, those which the military of the Allies get and those received by civilians. I am convinced that we shall have to deal with this situation and deal with it drastically. For example, what is going to happen when we go into Germany? Are we to continue to treat the German prisoners in this way? Are the prisoners in the cages to be given all the food they want while the starving population get nothing? This would be the best way of preserving that legend I have mentioned. There is no better way of appealing to an ignorant and gullible population. I call attention to these matters and ask that something should be done about them.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask the Noble Lord how he would meet the difficulty which is in the minds of many of us? How can we diminish the rations of the German prisoners without breaking the International Prisoners of War Convention?

Earl Winterton: The hon. Lady is the last person with whom I should wish to quarrel, but she must appreciate that I must be very careful what I say. If she thinks, she will see that there is only one way in which we can reduce the prisoner of war rations, and I am not prepared to advocate that course. If she has followed my argument, she will see why I am not prepared to argue that point. I do not think it is our duty. I regard the hon. Lady's interruption as friendly, but I do not think it is our duty. I would not like to advocate that course, for certain reasons, and because I do official work which brings me into communication with the United States. I call attention to the matter and suggest that it is a matter for the American Government to take up. I must, however, say that I have had from French people a somewhat unfortunate impression of what they regard as the high scale of living of U.S. Headquarters far behind the lines, compared with that of the civilian population around them. That is a thing which I think should be rigidly prevented, and I would like to say, now that we have got our forces into Germany, that the number of headquarters, both British and U.S., in the free countries should be kept as small as possible, and that they should be pushed, as quickly as possible, into enemy territory. I think that only those absolutely essential for clearing up remaining pockets of resistance should remain. We do not want to have what happened in the last war; a vast army located behind the lines, feeling a sense of great importance, and with people going round presumably on business, but in cars containing cases of wine and scent for their lady friends. I am told that that happened in the last war, but I have no personal knowledge of it. It is a serious point, which requires very serious consideration.
I only say this in conclusion. I put these facts, which I believe to be facts, before the House. I believe that, given the opportunity in the next few months, these three magnificent Allies of ours—


France, Belgium and Holland—will rise in time to all their former greatness. I believe these countries cannot be destroyed, at any rate morally, but we can do immense mischief to them, and both the United States and the British Governments must be extremely careful in their economic and military policy in the next few months. I find myself in absolute agreement with words used by the "New Statesman" in a recent issue, because I think it puts the whole matter into a nutshell. It will be remembered that Hitler said—and let the House remember that he said it again and again to certain people, hon. Members of this House, who were unwise enough to go to see him before the war, and he has said it during the war: "You do not understand the German people. We would rather commit suicide than surrender, but, in our suicide, we will bring down all Europe and will leave Europe a devastated and starving area." Let us take care that, in our policy, we do not, quite involuntarily, ensure that a portion of that comes true, because if the results, or what are considered to be the needs, of waging war effectively in Germany involve the population of the free countries in strains and deprivations which they think are not necessary, it will have done a great deal to create that state of affairs. I conclude by quoting from the "New Statesman":
It is just as essential to provide Europe with work, food and transport as it is to defeat the Nazis in the field.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am very glad that we have had this opportunity of a Debate on this important subject, arising, I think, out of the visit of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to France and Belgium on this question of supplies to the liberated areas. I do not know why the Noble Lord turned round and said I was going to disagree with hint—

Earl Winterton: I did not say that.

Mr. Greenwood: Well, the Noble Lord hinted at it. We are facing the making of the new era after the Western victory, and I say that supreme victory comes first, not only in the West, but in the East. There is nothing that this country would do to hinder the end of the war, or to postpone it by a day, or an hour. On the other hand, whilst the dominating

aim of the people of this country, of our Dominions and of our Allies is the final destruction of the forces working against us, then, a first measure, quite clearly, even in our own self-interests—but I would not put it on that basis—must be the sustenance and the rehabilitation of the people who have been overrun, despoiled and disordered by the Nazis. The Prime Minister made a great declaration, which I heartily approved. I was then, with the right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Cabinet. This was as early as August, 1940. It was a declaration of policy which binds us in honour and which we must try to fulfil. The Prime Minister said, on 20th August, 1940, in this House:
We can and we will arrange in advance for the speedy entry of food into any part of the enslaved area, when this part has been wholly cleared of German forces, and has genuinely regained its freedom. We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world, so that there will always be held before the eyes of the peoples of Europe, including—I say it deliberately—the German and Austrian peoples, the certainty that the shattering of the Nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 194o; Vol. 364, c. 1162.]
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has had to leave, but I may recall that in June, 1941, there was a conference at St. James's Palace which he and I attended—I referred to it in a speech rather over a year ago now, in the House of Commons—and at which we dealt with these problems. The Prime Minister himself was present on that occasion. In September of that year, we had a further inter-Allied conference. The British Government were taking constructive action then before our great Ally the United States of America came into the war. At that conference in September the Ambassador from the U.S.S.R. was present and again there was a declaration which I will repeat:
It is the common aim—(that is, of the Allied Powers present, assented to by the U.S.S.R.)—to secure that supplies of food, raw materials and articles of prime necessity should be made available for the post-war needs of the countries liberated from Nazi oppression.
These are the decisions to which this House of Commons, this Parliament, this people and all the Allied nations are committed. What is the position now? The kind of situation that might arise was known long before our invasion of Europe. It was foreseen. We had the Hot Springs Conference—another of those


marvellously named places which we do not possess in this country—dealing with the whole problem of nutrition in the future. It made a great contribution to the future permanent policy of the world with regard to food supplies and nutrition, but there is now a more immediate situation. I think that Britain has done its best. Britain was first in the field of all the Allies to deal with the question of the rehabilitation of the overrun countries when they were freed. That will always stand to our credit, and that undertaking we must in honour fulfil to the utmost of our ability. I remember the Debates in this House about A.M.G.O.T. and the discussions we have had on U.N.N.R.A. and Greece. It would appear that there are some defects in the organisation of this great plan. I, like the noble Lord, do not wish to be controversial, nor do I wish to utter one word against either a great Ally or a small Ally, but it would appear to me that the centre of gravity, the headquarters of this great organisation, ought to be in Europe and not on the other side of the world. I express that as a personal view, strongly held; I have held it for a long time. I would have thought that this country was the best headquarters for the succour of Europe and that we could take the food and supplies the liberated people need.
I would like to refer to this aspect and I hope my right hon. Friend may say something about it. There is a very grave world problem to-day. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the food situation in the world as a whole is, this year, somewhat grim. The food supplies available in the world, apart perhaps from wheat, are likely this year to be lower than they were last year. We have the tragic situation that where territories have been liberated, the people are starving, that they are hungry and their crying needs ought really to be satisfied and answered. With every territory that is liberated, those cries will rise louder and louder to the heavens and more and more people will rely on our consciences for their sustenance. The real question is, Is there enough food in the world available now to satisfy the reasonable needs of the peoples of the world and to succour the devastated areas?
My right hon. Friend the Noble Lord has referred to American Army rations.

I do not want to go into that question. Those rations seem to me to be ample as far as I have opportunities of judging them, but that is not the point. The real point is, if we have now a reduced world supply of food, then we must come to the priorities of its application. You mast feed your fighting men; nobody would complain about that. You must feed your civil population; no one would complain about that. Whether the civilian population in certain great territories over in America should treat themselves as handsomely as they apparently have done, is another matter, but it is important at this stage that we should declare two things. The first is, this country does not beg for food from any Ally. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came down in person the other day to deny certain statements that had been made that we had 700,000,000 tons of food stored away in order to fill the bellies of the people of this country, and he came down and told the truth—that it was 6,000,000 tons. We do not beg for food. If we have to tighten our belts again to fulfil the obligations of honour which we have undertaken, we will do it. I would be sorry if we had so to do, but at least we are entitled to make an appeal to the great food-producing countries of the world to come to the aid of the starving peoples in the West of Europe.
Although I do not want to use the word "merely" in any small sense, it is not merely a case of humanitarian interests, though they are considerable and important, and, to me, primary. Unless we can mobilise the world's food resources now in order to take them to the people who have been battered nigh unto death by the Nazi terror, unless we can bring to them the aid and nourishment that they need, Britain's future will indeed be bleak and hard. And unless we bring food quickly, there will be famine and death in the so-called liberated areas. No area is liberated if it is under the menace of hunger and death and disease. In the so-called liberated areas we shall face a problem the like of which the world has never seen, not even in the grim days of the Black Death.
We have to take this problem seriously into our consideration. After the last great war there was an enormous amount of suffering, an enormous number of deaths due, first, to preventable diseases, and, secondly, to


sheer starvation—numbers paralleling the numbers who had been slaughtered in war, or who had died bf their wounds. The situation may very shortly become even grimmer than that. The situation will be worse, because there has been a greater migration of people during this war. We have had mass movements, slaves driven into new countries, carrying with them—if I may use the term—their indigenous diseases and unaccustomed to withstand new diseases in the areas into which they went. That situation itself must lead to a situation on the Continent of Europe, the like of which we have never seen before. Whatever Dumbarton Oaks may say about international organisation after the war, and whatever organisation they may establish to deal with territories after the war, disease germs know no frontier, and this country may be just as open to some of the grievous diseases as those countries where they may arise and develop after the fighting has ceased. The problem has become complicated because of the difficulties with regard to the breakdown of normal food production in Europe. It has been further complicated by the breakdown of transport in Europe. It has been terribly endangered by the actual breakdown in many of the countries in South-Eastern, Eastern and Western Europe of the health services, and we may, therefore, very shortly be facing a terror that we have not known hitherto.
On the health side, I believe myself that the first need is food. I do not say that that is the final thing. There are three problems. The first is: Is the world willing to share its available food supplies amongst the people who need them? The second is: Can we do something to improve the long-distance transport of food? Shipping is a very grave problem—I appreciate that to the full—but in view of the urgency of the food situation, can anything be done in the coming weeks and months to improve the long-distance transport of food from the food producing areas to those areas, in the West of Europe particularly, which so urgently need food? Then there is the equally important question of internal transport and distribution on the Continent. It is little use loading up ports on the West of Europe, loading up Antwerp, for instance, with food, unless you can distribute it. I hope the agencies for distribution are

all right, but I have the gravest fears as to the adequacy of internal transport on the Continent at present time. There are bridges down, and railways damaged; there are not nearly the number of locomotives on the lines as formerly, indeed, but a fraction of what there were. There are very few lorries, and so on, available. This problem is really a vital problem, and I think we are entitled to ask the Government whether it is not possible to transport—I know this means sea transport as well—over the water, the lorries and vehicles which, to-day, by the thousand are being stood aside and are more or less out of use. That, I suggest, is clearly a matter of primary importance and might succeed in saving a very large number of lives. It is, however, not merely the question of food. In the Resolutions adopted by the Allied nations—

5.33 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1945.
2. Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1945.
3. Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945.
4. Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act, 1945.
5. Wages Councils Act, 1945.
6. Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board) Act, 1945.

LIBERATED COUNTRIES (SUPPLIES)

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

5.44 P.m.

Mr. Greenwood: As I was about to say when we were interrupted, not only is the problem one of food, but His Majesty's Government and the United Nations have declared that it is one of raw materials, clothing, and other supplies, and the provision of those means of life which will enable them to pull themselves back to


normal. That does not merely mean food or clothing. It may mean fertilisers and seeds; it may mean agricultural implements; it may mean raw materials to get their factories started, but it is the beginning of building up their life. The difficulties are obvious to all of us, and I think we appreciate that the difficulties, though grave, have somehow or another before very long to be overcome. They must be overcome in the human interests of the people who have suffered so terribly. They must be overcome because of our desire to aid universal prosperity because, as I have so often said—and I re-affirm it now—an impoverished Europe means an impoverished Britain.
I do not wish to enter into any political considerations, or to deal with the question of Germany after the war. This is not the occasion. I am dealing with the situation which has arisen before Germany is out of the war, and a very urgent situation it is. I believe—and I am sure all sides of the House will agree with me about this—that our treatment of the liberated peoples, our sense of urgency, our desire to go to their assistance, our determination even to strip the better-off countries, for the time being, for their needs, will be a test of the sincerity of our war aims. The Noble Lord spoke about psychological considerations. Such considerations are very powerful in the minds of the people, and we can prove to them and to the Germans, that if we wish it and work hard enough, we are liberators in the true sense, and that when they are released from their serfdom and suffering it will, in the long run, bring them full freedom of prosperity and human wellbeing. If there is to be a re-educated Germany, it can only be by noble examples on the lines I have suggested.

5.48 P.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): I think the House is indebted to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) for raising this very important subject, a subject which is of world importance and of deep human interest to us all. I do not wish to complain in the least of what he has said. He asked certain questions, and I will try to answer them. I will try to give the House a picture of what conditions are like in. the liberated areas, and of the kind of problem which has to be

faced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, this matter has always been one of anxiety to the Government. Ever since November, 1943, there has teen a Committee of the Ministers immediately concerned, sitting under the chairmanship of the Minister of Production; making preparations and following out this problem very closely. Recently, at the request of the War Cabinet, I went to the Continent and visited Paris, Brussels and parts of Holland in order that I might report on the situation to the Cabinet. I had long talks with French Ministers, with Belgian Ministers and with Dutch administrators, and I visited the military authorities at S.H.A.E.F. headquarters, and also at the 21st Army Group.
I was enabled, by this means, to get a picture of the broad quantitative problem, that is to say, to see how far supplies made available now and in the future, are, and will be, adequate for the needs of the population. I also tried to study the distributive problem, that is to say whether, given adequate supplies, the means of distribution were effective to ensure that they got to the people who really needed them. I studied the machinery for providing supplies to see bow they are estimated, ordered and brought forward. But the House will realise that in the six days which I spent abroad, it was clearly impossible for me to visit all areas, to see everything for myself. I had to rely, in the main, on information given to me personally, and on the talks I had. I made as close an observation as I could as I went through, but I should be the first to disavow the idea that I could give a first-hand picture of the conditions in all these areas.
I will try, as I have said, to give the House the picture as I saw it in the liberated areas, the prospects for the future as seen against the background of the probable course of the war, and of the world supply and transport conditions. Events are, of course, moving very rapidly to-day. Even in the short time since I was there, the situation has changed a good deal. I did not go there to try to hold an inquest into the past or to see whether everything had been done properly during those past months, but I think it right to give the House a sketch of the course of events, because without seeing past events, one can hardly appreciate the problem of the present.
I would like to indicate some of the difficulties that faced the military authorities, and still face them, and particularly to stress the necessity of understanding the immense problems that face the Governments of France, Belgium and Holland. It is no good thinking that these Governments, going back to their liberated areas, have anything but the most appallingly difficult administrative tasks. First, I will give the House, as far as I can, a picture of the machinery by which goods are procured, and how this machinery works. Let me remind the House of the general conditions of these three countries, France, Belgium and Holland. In normal times, France is not a deficit area, except for certain items. There are certain deficit areas but, broadly speaking, France is normally a self-sufficient country. Nevertheless parts of the country differ very much from each other, and it is only when they are linked together by transport and distributive systems that they can make a satisfactory economic whole. In the main, the surplus areas of France lie in the North and the deficit areas in the South. Therefore, if the means of transportation are broken down problems of distribution are bound to arise. Belgium, always a food importing country—although parts are self-sufficing—is one of the most heavily industrialised countries in Western Europe. So, too, in Holland, although there are food-producing areas such as in the Ardennes, and the islands of the Scheldt. Let me mention a fact which is not forgotten here, but is sometimes forgotten outside this country, namely, that Great Britain, the base for the entry into the Continent, and the nearest source of supply, is the country which itself depends most of all on imported supplies, a country which has been under constant air attack of varying intensity through these war years, a country dependant for its life on the import of food from overseas under the constant menace of the U-boat. Let it be remembered that as a deficit area, this country cannot supply other deficit areas, except at the expense of its own supplies, a great proportion of which much come from overseas.
The landings on the Continent were planned, and duly took place on D-Day. No one could prophesy their success, or how fast or how far that success would go. The responsibility for the provision

of supplies to the people of the liberated areas rests on the military authorities. Their duty, however, is limited to the provision of what is, essentially, an austerity standard. A minimum standard is carefully estimated to be sufficient, but it leaves little or no margin, and it was on this basis that S.H.A.E.F. headquarters had to make the best estimate they could of what would be required to be brought in, taking into account what is supplied by the liberated areas themselves. They had to consider available shipping, port resources, and internal transport. All that had to be worked in with the requirements for a great moving battle. It was no easy task. As I say, this was an austerity standard; it was not adopted out of meanness, but because military affairs must come first and with the enormous pressure there is on every kind of transport and ports and all the rest of it, and with the stringency you get in a war of movement, civilian needs had to be kept to the minimum necessary.

Earl Winterton: This is a point of great importance. When the right hon. Gentleman says that military needs must come first, I hope he will also say, "subject to the minimum needs of the civilian population."

Mr. Attlee: That is what I said. I did not want to pitch it too high. Minimum needs have been worked out to keep the people going. It is for minimum needs, and I am glad that the noble Lord has helped me to make that point. Just see how the position developed. Landings took place and were supplied by that remarkable artificial harbour that many of us have seen either actually, or in pictures and plans. The work of freeing the major ports took place very slowly. The Germans hung on to them. Antwerp was not open until 1st December. Maintenance, the supply and re-inforcement of the great forces moving through France and Belgium towards the German border, had to be provided through the artificial port, and a number of small ports. Through them had to go everything the troops themselves wanted, and importations for the civilian population. It is a very long haul from Normandy to Belgium, and I think everybody will understand the difficulties. The further we went, and the more rapid was our success, the greater the difficulties. Moreover, as everybody remembers, the


attack on the Germans involved the destruction of many bridges by ourselves, by the Germans, or by the partisans, and the destruction of much road and rail transport. In effect, there was dislocation of the whole transport system in Northern France.
Against two great difficulties let me set two advantages. The first was that the landings took place just before the harvest, which meant that the campaign was going on while the greatest amount of supplies was coming from France. Secondly, we got rather larger stocks off the enemy than we had anticipated. It may be said that those factors for a time cancelled out. The fact of getting the harvest and of getting German supplies was a temporary advantage, but the disadvantage was continuous until we could open up major ports and repair the transport. Therefore, there was this over-all difficulty of supply. When we got ports, there was the immense difficulty of distribution in a country where not merely the rolling stock had gone, but bridges had been broken down.
It follows from this that the picture in any liberated area has its lights and shades. It is not all dark, it is not all light. You will find generally that there is something more than the bare rations in the richer agricultural areas. You will find generally that most difficulties are in the poorer parts of the big towns. In France it is natural that the shortages should develop particularly in the South, which are the deficit areas. There was a very widespread destruction of bridges throughout France. Inevitably, the earliest repairs had to be done in the Northern sector which was supplying the front and the troops going forward. Very great progress has been made in repairing bridges and railways. I think the French have done an extremely good job, and they told me personally how grateful they were for the work of both British and American engineers. A really marvellous job has been done in the replacement of bridges. Engines and rolling stock have been sent from this country—and again the French expressed their gratitude—and some of those engines and rolling stock could be very ill spared. We are not too well supplied ourselves. I quite agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, and I do not contest his figures.

What has to be realised, first of all, is that, however it is shared out, it is a question of a mere fraction of the transport that was available for France in peace-time. Secondly, military traffic necessarily takes a large proportion, but we have sent over there engines and a great deal of rolling stock, and we have got more in hand and being made; but with the best will in the world, with the kind of destruction that has gone on in the transport system of Europe, it is quite impossible for this country to make it up. We send what we can.
Let me add a further point. One wants to get clearly in one's mind the long-term and the short-term difficulties. One of the most tragic problems—and it was a tragic problem—was that of Paris. This was partly due, of course, to the war circumstances, but it was very much increased by most disastrous floods, such floods as they had not had in decades at that time of the year, followed by a hard winter and then the normal floods. These floods had their effect on road, rail, canal and river transport, and especially affected the transport of coal, which normally came to Paris by barge. Everybody must realise that the conditions were very, very bitter in Paris last winter.
I shall say a few words later on with regard to the over-all position, but I was glad to hear what the Noble Lord said with regard to the mistake of trying to judge a country by a single example. It is quite wrong to suggest that because you had butter in Normandy, all Normandy is fat and all France fat, or to make a similar generalisation, because you happened to go to Paris and get a good meal in a restaurant. It is equally dangerous to generalise on the score of some letters or personal experiences which show extreme hunger or suffering in individual cases. The essential thing to bear in mind is that the picture is a patchwork.
I would like to say something about the machinery for providing for the needs of the liberated areas. The responsibility is primarily on the military authorities. They are responsible for what the Noble Lord called the minimum supplies. These are not only food but clothing, blankets, and soap. Coal and petroleum, again, have to come from Army supplies. It must be remembered that the Armies need a great deal of coal. It is not a question of what


the military authorities want to do, but what they can do. The French have, as a matter of fact, provided the Allied Armies with more coal than we have exported to France. The coal situation has improved. The difficulty was to get the pit props, which came from quite a different part of France. In a country which is liberated, one finds that all the old integrations have gone because of the occupation. The monthly demands for supplies are approved by Shaef and sent to Washington, where they are approved, some months ahead, and the supplies are brought to a country.
In addition to these minimum supplies there are what are known as the National Import Programmes. These programmes comprise some food, but mainly raw materials and machinery—the whole range of commodities—sometimes in quite small quantities, but necessary to get the economy of these countries going. The responsibility for formulating those demands rests with the National Governments concerned. It is obvious that the full imports there were in peace-time are not possible. Therefore, we have to concentrate on the things that will give the best return. I would like to tell the House that we have made available to liberated Europe substantial quantities of raw materials in order to help them to start their industrial life. We have indicated our willingness to supply something like 400,000 tons of raw materials, or if you take some part of the resources from abroad, nearly 500,000 tons.
The total includes substantial quantities of such things as iron and steel nonferrous metals, textiles, tanning materials, chemicals, fertilisers, and the like. Many of these things we import from abroad, but in order to save time in shipping we sent them across until the countries themselves can get in the stuff from the normal sources. We do this where we have sufficient stocks. Some of these stocks have already been sent, some are still in the procurement stage, and in the case of others negotiations are still proceeding. We have placed contracts for finished equipment, the materials for the repair of transport and agricultural machinery. A hundred locomotives are being built for U.N.R.R.A. and over 10,000 railway wagons are on order for France. It may be said that "on order" is not much good, but a great many

wagons and trucks have been sent. The Noble Lord said that there were no lorries for lifting sugar beet. The fact is that we have not got the lorries to send over in that quantity.

Earl Winterton: Surely, the United States must have lorries. Why cannot they send them?

Mr. Attlee: I was dealing with this country. The lorries are not available for us to send to France, and as for the lorries being made in the United States, that falls on to the general shipping allocation position. Lorries are coming from the United States, but with the shipping available it is not possible to get them all across at once. They are coming gradually.

Dr. Haden Guest: Were the supplies which my right hon. Friend was speaking about just now sent from this country alone, and not from this country in consultation with the United States?

Mr. Attlee: All are sent in consultation with the United States. Some are procured here, some in the United States, and some come from wherever they can be procured and wherever shipping can be got.

Dr. Haden Guest: On joint responsibility?

Mr. Attlee: Yes.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great number of Army lorries laid up awaiting repairs and that the lack of labour may make it impossible to release these lorries for France immediately? Would it be possible to bring some skilled labour over and so make possible a greater flow of secondhand lorries to France?

Mr. Attlee: Ten thousand of those lorries have been repaired and sent across. The lorries are over there. We are trying to get them repaired on the spot by French labour. That is better than bringing French labour here, in view of the difficulties of accommodation, and so forth. We are trying to supply the materials, jigs and tools. In many cases, when the Germans went they stripped the place of everything. We are not too well off in the matter of jigs and tools, but we are trying to get them.

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many lorries have actually been sent to France, Belgium and Holland, the most easily accessible countries, and how many of those sent have been available for civilian needs?

Mr. Attlee: Ten thousand have been sent for Army Civil Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be replying to the Debate and perhaps he will be able to give the details which I have not got at the moment. We are trying to direct our efforts to getting the economies of these countries running so as to enable them to do what they are very anxious to do, that is, to do their best to help in the war effort. It is a system called priming the pump. It is obviously much better if we can get them to work mending their own lorries than to send shipments across. If we can get fertilisers to them, they will grow food and later on will not have to import it. The bottleneck may be shipping, it may be ports, it may be internal transport.
Let me say now what is the general position to-day. There are hardships, there are local shortages, but I think one can say that, considering the difficulties, the military authorities have done good work. There have been delays occasionally in the procurement, no doubt there have been mistakes here and there, but broadly speaking, in spite of very great difficulties, these minimum supplies have been sufficient to avoid disease and unrest. I at once admit, again, that the standard is minimum, far lower, as the Noble Lord said, than the standard in North America. Obviously, the standard has to be, and is, supplemented in the case of heavy workers, but it is sufficient to maintain health, and up to now there has been a remarkable freedom from epidemics. That speaks well for our success. I would point out here that these Supplies are precarious. They depend on the punctual fulfilment of programmes and the efficiency of the machinery of distribution. That is an important point. It has not been possible to build up reserves. These countries practically live from ship to mouth where all the goods have to be imported. Unless a country has known what it is to be rather closely rationed, it does not always understand why we must have stocks; sometimes they say that if there are stocks why not use them up at once? During the last five

years I have watched our stock position very closely, and I can tell the House that I have had some pretty anxious moments with regard to particular commodities. I know pretty well what kind of stocks you have to keep, if you are to keep your distribution right at all points.
I think it is a very great credit to the authorities overseas that they have had so little breakdown. A general told me that he had to go down to the ship, get the flour out to the bakery and bake the bread there. That was how they got the bread, and saved the situation. One of the other difficulties that have to be realised is that of running your own economy. I have every sympathy with the military authorities. I have said that we have been able to release transport which has been very much appreciated, but I do not think the Noble Lord was quite right in what he said with regard to our shipments. I do not question his figures—I think they are right—but I do not think he got quite the right deduction from them. It is true that 200,000 tons of shipping have been allocated recently to France and the Noble Lord rather implied that that was to the disadvantage of the French, but I wish to point out that France shares in the general pool of shipping. All Allied shipping is pooled and you would not get better supplies to countries, if you pulled their shipping out of the pool and allocated it separately. I have tried to follow some of the points that have been made but I cannot find any record of the cocoa rotting in North Africa. As to Dakar, the Noble Lord would be glad to know that some ships have been specially allocated there. The position at Reunion has always been very difficult because they have cyclones there, and very poor port facilities. The broad picture is that we try to bring supplies from where they are to where there is need, and what we have to make sure of is the greatest economy in shipping, haulage and port facilities. I do not think that we have let our friends down in this respect.
I have said that our stocks are not large. Up to this moment, the Minister of Food has sent, or agreed to release to the liberated areas, which includes some of the Mediterrean areas as well, 900,000 tons of food from our own stock. It is very difficult to realise what that means, and I should like to bring out the figure a


little more graphically. I know that quite a lot of people would like to send parcels to friends across the Channel. It is a thought that appeals to all of us. My right hon. Friend has explained that it is a wasteful method. One of the troubles is that it does not necessarily get the food to the quarter where it is most needed, and it is based on rather haphazard international connections between individuals. Take that 900,000 tons which we have sent or are still sending from our stocks. That is equivalent to what would have been sent if every single man, woman and child in this country who had a ration card, had sent a food parcel weighing 4 lbs. overseas every month for II months. I think hon. Members would agree that if we had a voluntary organisation that sent parcels with that result, we should think that it had done extremely well. The point is that we in this country know that the only way you can ensure food getting where it ought to go, is by a rationed system and through the official sources.

Miss Rathbone: If the food parcels could be sent only on the production of medical evidence, and there was serious need—we have heard of cases where such parcels would enable people to live or probably save them from tuberculosis—would it not be possible in such special cases for such parcels to be sent?

Mr. Attlee: I ask hon. Members to think of the immense amount of work and organisation, the packing and then the checking involved. It is not so easy as has been suggested. My memory reverts to a strong animadversion of the hon. Member in this House about 18 months ago, on this business of sending parcels, when she begged us not to use that method of sending food because it meant that only certain people got extra food. I think, considering the position we are in, that the only and the right way is to support the French and Belgian Governments in trying to get the food distributed throughout the whole country.

Earl Winterton: In view of this very generous conveyance of 900,000 tons of food, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the strongest representations have been made to the United States Government, pressing on them the constitutional and moral responsibility they have for making up these stocks?

Mr. Attlee: I am going to deal with that point later. I would now like to say a word about the black market. There is a black market in France and in Belgium, and it is a serious evil, but it is possible to exaggerate it. Let me take an instance of the kind of thing that could happen. Some one expresses a desire for coffee, and you want to send some coffee across to France. By that you might very well start a black market—because the people who got the coffee might not be genuine—unless you could check the whole matter right through, and as hon. Members are well aware, it is extremely difficult to check these things. The only way to do it is to have adequate supplies on the ration. One must also remember that in the time of the German occupation, the black market was a virtue. Now it is being turned into a vice, and it is very difficult to get rid of those habits. I am quite certain that the Governments over there are doing their very best and we ought to give them all the help we possibly can. It is going to be a very difficult task. I think it ought to be made clear to hon. Members that, just as our operations were advantaged in 1944 because they took place before the harvest, so we are now approaching our most difficult time, because we are coming to the short season before the next harvest. Belgium and Holland in particular have to depend almost wholly on imported foods. If the food supply asked for and intended, could be provided punctually, and if all other factors remained normal, I think we could hold that position. I think if we can keep the thing going, reasonably improving the internal transport and improving the distribution machinery, we can as I say hold on, but I must emphasise that we have to keep it going.
We have a shipping difficulty, and, on top of it, we have a procurement difficulty. At times we have had a great difficulty over shipping. Latterly our trouble has been that having got the shipping, we could not get the food. I ask the House to remember that the war has been on a long time now. Great sources of supply including important ones, have been cut off altogether, such as for instance supplies from the East Indies. Burma rice and others of that nature. Meat is very difficult. There has been a great drought in Australia. It is also difficult not only because the supply has been short but because the demand has


increased. Very many people who have never had meat before in this war, are eating it now, because the standard of life and the purchasing power have gone up, particularly on the Continent of America. Therefore we find not only individuals eating more, but the population as a whole eating more meat, and the demand has gone up, from people who have never had it before. Another thing is that we have a great number of people in the Army today and they eat more meat than ordinary civilians. I do, however, quite agree with the Noble Lord that we have always to look pretty closely to see whether the Service demands are too high or too low. Wheat fortunately is in pretty good supply, but there we have shipping difficulties both with regard to getting ports open and with getting the stuff down to the ports. We are faced as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said with a danger of world shortages in certain imported items—fats and milk products.
It is against that world shortage that we have to see the picture of the liberated areas and all Europe. It is a very dark picture. In France the transport position is improving a good deal, and I found the French Ministers I talked to more anxious over the food situation than the transport position. The position in the South is undoubtedly bad in places, particularly in the towns. You would not, as a matter of fact, effect a cure even if you could pour food into some ports, if you could not get the distribution right and have the food distributed to the difficult areas. In Belgium, although the position was worsened by our Ardennes offensive and the food situation is not at all easy, it has been well held. Transport is difficult in Belgium because though a small country it is extremely highly-developed with regard to railways. The Belgians are very anxious to get their industries going. That is the important point. It is important from our own point of view and from that of the United Nations that we should use the manpower of those countries. The position in Luxemburg is very much the same.
In freed Holland the position has been reasonably well held. I visited as many people in that country as I could, I visited Walcheren, the great island which has been flooded, with the town of Middelburgh standing up in the middle of the island. I visited that and saw its people;

they looked very fine, and their spirit was fine. They said to me, "If we are flooded we are free." Others said "this kind of thing has happened to us several times within the last thousand years." The Dutch are, I emphasise, a very fine people, a very sturdy people. I saw them working. They hope to get the material forward and that they will be able to close the gaps in the dykes and to get the agricultural land into good order again in a fairly reasonable time. I also motored through a good many villages and towns. I was at Maastricht when the people were on holiday celebrating the sixth month of their freedom. I saw the children, and they looked pretty well all right. I am not going to judge the whole country by samples. I can only say that the samples I saw looked as jolly as could be.
The thing that is troubling the Dutch in free Holland is not their own case but the terrible case of those of Holland still under the Germans. I do not think the Noble Lord put it in the slightest degree too high when he talked of the terrible disaster that threatens this great people. The Germans are giving them only about a quarter of the standard in free Holland. The food is utterly inadequate. We have got some food in through the Red Cross—not enough but as much as we could. We are making preparations to feed them as soon as we can get there, and there will have to be specialised foods for people who are very near starvation. We are making our plans for feeding them—the House will net expect me to tell them anything about our military plans. We are regarding it as an operation which cannot wait, but it will take time. We must get the stuff through. We are making every effort. Everyone is alive to the situation. We are laying our plans to do everything we can in order that, when Holland is free, we can get the food to the people.
There is one other anxiety that I ought to mention. There has already accumulated a great number of displaced persons; they are the people who have been taken away from their homes to work as slaves for the Nazis, and, as our Armies move forward, they become free. They have to be fed and looked after. If these countries are working on a narrow basis, they cannot stand the impact of a large number of displaced persons, and we have to make provision for looking after the displaced persons as well. There is the further


prospect that we may have to feed a great number of Germans. Hitherto they have been found to be tolerably well provided for, but I agree with what has been said about conditions of life inside Germany. We must do our best, but our friends must come before our enemies. I have not said anything about U.N.R.R.A. because that is not really operating in these particular countries, but I should not like people to think that U.N.R.R.A. is not important. It is very important, not only for the supplies but for the personnel service.
I have tried to give the House a general, balanced view of the problem. I believe that actual needs are being met, but the matter is critical and we have to see that they are met. The Ministers of Production and Food have gone across to the United States at the invitation of the President to discuss the general food problem and the special food problem in the liberated areas. I repeat that we are a food-importing country. We have reduced our stocks to what we believe is the limit of safety, having regard to our island position. We lie near the Continent, and there is always the tendency to call upon us for immediate aid if there is a sudden difficulty. We have responded again and again, but, if our stocks were reduced below danger point we should not be able to respond in the future. Our own regular rations are not on a high scale. They are on a very modest scale, and you cannot make big reductions in them without affecting the war effort. We are in the sixth year of the war. Our people, in South-East England particularly, have borne the burden of intermittent air attacks. Anyone who has been under fire knows what a difference it makes if you have a good meal inside you.

Miss Rathbone: How many people live on their rations? They all supplement their rations at restaurants if they can afford it.

Mr. Attlee: That is one of the hon. Lady's sweeping statements.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during a certain period some miners had to stop work because their rations were not sufficient to enable them to carry on?

Mr. Attlee: That is quite likely. In any event, what we could for a time cut from our rations would not really meet the

need. We have shown, again and again, and will show again, our readiness to bear our share in the relief of the liberated areas. I think the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite quite rightly interpreted the feelings of the people. These things are being worked out. I have not the slightest doubt that the people on the American Continent feel as we do. Their hearts are as warm as ours and they have as much sympathy as we have. It is a vital interest to all of us to get as good conditions as we possibly can, as soon as we can, in the liberated areas. I agree that it is as essential for winning the victory of freedom and democracy as destroying the enemy in the field. I am sure I express the view of the House in saying that, within the limits of our power, we in this country will do our share to help our friends in the liberated areas.

6.43 P.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I am happy to be entering the Debate at a moment when the House has already had the advantage of hearing a first-hand account from the Lord President of the Council of both the difficulties and the actual situation of the countries that he has visited. He has made it clear that the responsibility is, as it must be at this moment, solely with the military authorities for the areas in which they are operating. When I say "responsibility" I do not mean discredit. I mean whatever is due of credit or discredit. I agree that a great deal of good work has been done. This responsibility in the military areas rests on the military and, as regards supplies outside their area, it rests on the corn-biped Boards in negotiation with the national Governments. It does not rest in any degree at this moment with U.N.R.R.A., and I think it is well that this should be made very clear. There is a very great deal of disillusionment about U.N.R.R.A. One hears the question on all sides: "Why is not U.N.R.R.A. doing something about this? Is it never going to operate?" I think it is well to say very clearly that at this moment, 15 months after U.N.R.R.A. has been created, it is true that U.N.R.R.A. is not operating on its own responsibility in any liberated country. U.N.R.R.A. is managing a few camps in North Africa, it is collaborating, to a limited extent, with the military in regard to plans for dis-


placed persons, it has supplied a few tons of clothing and food to France. It has also supplied a limited personnel, working under the orders of the military, who have helped in Greece, and it is in Greece perhaps that U.N.R.R.A. will first be operating on its own responsibility—on 1st April next. But that is about all.
Why is this? I think the Governments who created U.N.R.R.A. started it too early, organised it too cumbrously, circumscribed it too narrowly and advertised it too enthusiastically. It is no advantage for a new institution to be given the job of planning many months beforehand if the planning is in vacuo, if the time when you can operate is an indefinite time ahead, if the plans have to be adapted, not only to unforeseeable future conditions but to invitations, consents and decisions of external authorities whom you cannot control. In these circumstances it is extremely difficult either to recruit the right people, to maintain their morale or to acquire the official prestige which is power. I said the Governments have made the organisation of U.N.R.R.A. too cumbrous. I say "the Governments" deliberately, and not the Administration, for it was the decision of the Governments at Atlantic City in 1943 which established the elaborate network of committees on each side of the Atlantic. It was also the Governments which determined the disproportionate size of the Montreal meeting of the Council in September—altogether out of proportion to the limited number of questions that had to be decided. The size of the conference was the sum total of the national delegations chosen separately by the different Governments. Then, too, it was, I think, an embarrassing and perhaps regrettable limitation that U.N.R.R.A. was instructed to look after rehabilitation but forbidden to touch the sacred ground of reconstruction. That distinction means, if you try to apply it, that if, for example, the crying need of a district in Czechoslovakia is that a boot factory should be repaired, given its raw material and started, U.N.R.R.A. may help it to the extent that it may make boots for relief purposes but must stop if the boots are to be exported. That is impossible. It is not to be wondered at that in those circumstances U.N.R.R.A. has drawn back from the sphere of rehabilitation.
All this does not mean that U.N.R.R.A. cannot do a good deal in the future. It will not do as well as if some earlier mistakes had not been made, but it can do a great deal if it is now given a chance. Here I should like to address myself to the Secretary of State for War, because it is he who can give them their chance. It is hopeless to think that, when the military decide that the moment has come to terminate their responsibility and for U.N.R.R.A. to take it on, they will suddenly be able to come in and at once take over the job efficiently if they have not been associated with the first stages of relief. I know that there is collaboration in certain fields, but it has not gone anything like far enough. Is it not possible to give instructions to our military authorities to see that to the utmost extent possible U.N.R.R.A. officials who will have to take over the work later should be associated now with the work being done under the authority of the Civil Affairs administration. I would like to go further and ask whether the Secretary of State cannot give instructions that plans should be made at once for arranging that many of the Civil Affairs personnel who will have acquired invaluable and indispensable experience in carrying out their duties in the military period should be so classified and arranged that they could be transferred to carry on their work with U.N.R.R.A. when its period of responsibility begins. I would like to make one further suggestion. When the fighting ceases there will undoubtedly be an enormous number of military lorries on the spot which can be dispensed with. I hope that arrangements are being made now for very large transfers of these lorries either to the national Governments, or to U.N.R.R.A. or the European transport organisation, or whatever authority is concerned, because there is no doubt that the future will depend a great deal on the extent to which it is possible to supplement and improve transport facilities.
I find quite a number of my friends, who are interested like myself in the future of international administration, saying that U.N.R.R.A, is the test of the future of international administration. May I earnestly advise them to drop that kind of remark, for it will be a terrible boomerang later. The first real test of an international organisation will be the first organisation that is created after the


war has finished, and not one that is created now. I was in the first stages of the League of Nations Secretariat, and I know what our task was then. I have been in the first stages of the U.N.R.R.A. organisation, and I know what that task was. The difference is just this. When Lord Perth, then Sir Eric Drummond, had to establish the League of Nations Secretariat, which while political conditions were good was a very efficient organisation, he had these advantages. The League of Nations offered the most attractive work in the world with prospects of permanence, and he had the whole field of Europe from which to select his personnel. He had people in America and this country who had just proved their worth in the war and had just finished their war work and were not involved in new work. One could not imagine more ideal conditions in every respect. Governor Lehman was in an infinitely more difficult position. He had a temporary organisation with an uncertain mandate and no possibility of action except the other side of several hurdles of intervening consents; and the great majority of the suitable Europeans were locked up in Europe and the great majority of suitable Americans and British were locked up in immediate and urgent war work. It was impossible that in those circumstances we should get the kind of organisation which we shall hope to get when we have the chance of building a post-war international organisation.
I will now turn from U.N.R.R.A. to what is, after all, the question with which, we are dealing. That is the situation, actual and prospective, of Europe as a whole and the means for help, relief and reconstruction through whatever be the organisation. I agree generally with the Noble Lord the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) in his account, which was confirmed by the Lord President of the Council, of the situation in France, Belgium and Holland. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the normal rations for the normal person in France are not more than half of our not excessive rations. The situation is much the same in Belgium. It is a trifle better, perhaps, in the liberated part of Holland, but on the other side of the fighting line it is infinitely worse. Some food is, I think, going into Greece now, but about half the draught animals for

transport have been killed, and four-fifths of the coastal craft have been destroyed. In Yugoslavia and elsewhere the situation is obscure, or it differs very much from district to district. On the Dalmatian coast there is great suffering but relative plenty elsewhere, with a complete absence of the transport needed to enable one part to help another. The Dalmatian part can only be helped by overseas transport.
We have had the difficulties described to us—shipping, internal transport, shortage of supplies, and other difficulties. We appreciate how grave those difficulties are. Of those difficulties, perhaps the most temporary is likely to be sea transport. We realise that there has been a shipping difficulty due, as the Prime Minister told us, to a coincidence of the peaks of the two wars. We shall find, I think, that the difficulty of inland transport will last longer, and difficulties of shortage of supplies of meat, fats, sugar and other things still longer. I wonder, as regards shipping, if it will not be possible for the Government to think of going one step further than they have at present. I realise that Allied shipping is in a pool, and I realise the administrative advantage of arranging shipping through a general pool. I wonder, however, whether it would not be possible now to assure countries like Norway, which has a large mercantile marine, under time charter to us and the U.S.A. that enough of it—or equivalent tonnage in its place—will be released to enable her to import what urgently needed supplies she can get as soon as she is liberated. Norway will find it impossible anyhow to get more than the bare minimum of what she needs because of the shortage of supplies, and will certainly not get more than will absorb more than a very small proportion of her shipping. Could we not now assure her that we will see that at least the distribution of her shipping in the pool is not such as to prevent her from carrying such supplies as she can get?
We, of course, realise that while operations continue civilian necessity must yield to military necessity. But through a very natural human characteristic which is not confined to the military, but from which the military is not exempt, the line between military necessity and military convenience is not always very sharply drawn. And when operations cease civi-


lian necessity ought to be given first priority. I doubt whether the existing organisation is such as to ensure that that will be done. I hope that plans are being made in considerable detail for what is to happen if our present hopes of victory should be realised very quickly, when the whole problem of dealing with liberated areas will be immensely magnified. For example, I remember that at the end of the last war, in October, 1918, we had drawn up a series of alternative loading instructions for our ships in practically every port of the world, indicating precisely what civilian goods were to be put in the ships as they came forward for loading instead of munitions, which were to be left ashore. I hope that something of the same kind is being arranged now.
I have said something about the position in Europe, but I think that what really constitutes our chief anxiety is not so much the conditions in the countries that have already been liberated; we know where we are about them. It is about the kind of scene that will present itself to us as the curtain goes up, when victory is complete and the whole of Europe is before us as our problem and responsibility. We shall have before us, not, as we had after the last war, a substantially intact Continent with a few patches of devastation; we shall have a devastated Continent with a few fortunate oases. We shall find a scorched earth, destroyed factories, a shattered transport system, and the whole social and political fabric of society very largely in ruins. We shall find displaced persons to the number of tens of millions have to be dealt with. And we certainly cannot exclude from the account the problem of Germany and the supply of Germany itself. As the Lord President said, our friends must have priority. I agree, but that does not finish the matter. I so far agree +with him that I wonder at this moment—when perhaps the Nazi terror discipline is disintegrating, and when men may begin to pluck up their courage and break away from the Volksturm and other parts of the German Army and get back to their homes—I wonder whether at this moment, when the cattle are being slaughtered and the chance of Spring is being lost, it would not be worth while now to broadcast this message in every possible way that will reach the German people: that since there is going to be a

world shortage after the war, and our friends must come first, we shall not be sending in such supplies as will prevent widespread suffering in Germany, but that every man who can get back now to his farm will be doing something at least to relieve the future suffering of his family and friends.
But that will not finish it. We shall find that the food for the German population is a responsibility. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), in her tribute to Earl Lloyd-George earlier to-day, referred to General Plumer and the view he took of the situation in Germany after the last war. The House will perhaps remember Plumer's famous telegram which he sent at that time. I remember it well, for I had just been to Germany and had come back to report to Mr. Lloyd George on the conditions I found there. I found him closeted with Colonel House when General Plumer's telegram was brought in. It said, in effect: "I cannot maintain the health of my troops unless further food is sent into Germany, for nothing will prevent my men from giving away their rations to the starving civilians around them." When the fighting stops that situation will recur to some extent, and we cannot wipe it off the balance sheet which we now have to face.
I now come to my last and my main point. The task we have ahead is not merely that of relief and rehabilitation; it is essentially the task of the reconstruction of Europe—of the whole of Europe, the Europe of our foes as well as of that of our friends. It is a vast task. It is not a task with which anything in our existing system is equipped to deal. U.N.R.R.A. is specifically precluded from undertaking that work—and it could not be made capable of undertaking it. It will not be the responsibility of the military authorites, whose operations will be ceasing rather than expanding. They cannot, and are not intended to undertake it. It seems clear that there must be some superior authority, which does not yet exist, which will co-ordinate and direct the policy of the main victorious Powers, as regards the reconstruction of Europe. In what will be left of the military organisation, the combined boards for food, shipping, raw materials and production, and in U.N.R.R.A., we have different parts of an instrument which, all


together, might be used, partly at least, to undertake this work; but they do not between them cover the ground. And they are without central direction or any unified control.
What we urgently want is a superior authority, comparable to the Supreme Economic Council of which I was General Secretary which was established in 1919, differing only in that I hope it will be created with less delay, and will have a wider authority inasmuch as the task is greater. It must be an authority which will co-ordinate for the principal victorious Powers all their policy and their efforts in regard to assisting the reconstruction of Europe. It would instruct and control and supplement the different bodies in the present organisation. One might call it the Supreme Reconstruction Council. Let me say in passing that this is not a work for any organisation that can be set up as a result of the Conference on a permanent peace organisation at San Francisco. This is essentially part of the peace settlement itself. The responsibility must rest upon those victorious Powers who are making the peace settlement. A new Council of this kind should, I think, be established, end established quickly.
If we supplement our present system in this way we may have some hope of meeting the greatest challenge to the constructive effort of man that has ever been witnessed in the history of the world. Without it, our present system will be completely inadequate. The time is now. Last year was too early, and next year will most certainly be too late. The time is now.

7.2 p.m.

Commander Prior: In the course of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) reference was made to displaced persons, who have been calculated to number between 20, 000,000 and 30,000,000 in Europe, a very large number of them in Germany. Among displaced persons I include prisoners of war, refugees, those who have been forcibly deported, and above all, the remnants of those Jews in Hitler's Reich. There were 6,000,000 Jews, and now 1,000,000 remain. The Nazis have carried out the

most dastardly crime in all history. If I am in Order and I am not boring hon. Members, I would like to recount a story of refugees, as I myself witnessed it.
In 1943, when the Nazis first burst into Vichy, a large number of Jews, underground leaders, journalists and politicians who were up against the Gestapo, made a bolt for Spain. They went to Spain in their thousands, but Franco brought up his divisions to patrol every road, every railway and every other means of transport for at least 30 miles from the frontier, and it was touch and go whether the Spaniards would let that fleeing multitude into their country. It was only after the direct personal intervention of our Ambassador, Lord Templewood, that they were allowed in. Otherwise they would have been turned back. Many were, and were shot. Those who were admitted were charged, either with having carried foreign valuta into the country or having entered without papers.
The first thing that happened to the refugees was that they were taken to a police station and thrown into the basement. There they stayed for any time between 24 hours and 24 days, men, women and children huddled together, with no accommodation for sleeping, only two plates of soup a day, no facilities for washing and very inadequate sanitary arrangements. In fact, they lived in appalling conditions. Parents were taken away from children, who screamed all night. If a German deserter came in, he was immediately accorded special treatment and special food. From those basements the refugees were marched away to a prison. In a cell built to accommodate 20 people 40 of them had to live. The British Ambassador in Madrid again came to the rescue, and not only British subjects but practically all the refugees were supplied with blankets and money to buy food from the prison canteen. The food in those prisons was a little better than in the police station, but not much.
When the refugees left the prison, they were formed up, handcuffed in pairs, and marched to the station, put into cattle trucks and sent a two or three days' journey to a concentration camp at Miranda. In that camp, which was built for 1,000 persons, something like 4,000 men were crammed, and again conditions were extremely unpleasant. The water supply was insufficient and the


sanitary arrangements and the food, though not so bad, were bad enough. The food was just enough to support life. It was very interesting to note that in the concentration camp a small black market thrived. In one of the barracks the black marketeers got to work. The British Government generously provided chocolate, biscuits and blankets, but when none of these were available on issue they could always be bought in the black market. I am afraid the black market had a great check when two of the chief participants were cut open with a knife and the place was set on fire. The black market then ceased.
In that camp were 800 Poles. Many of them had been there two or three years. They decided to go on hunger strike. It was impossible to have 800 men not eating, and the rest of the camp eating, so orders were given by the senior British officer that the whole camp was to go on hunger strike for a week. At the end of the time 200 men collapsed, but the point was gained. The Spaniards agreed to release all men under i8 and all men over 45, and to allow the Red Cross to go into the camp. The British Embassy assisted all those who were released to get out of the country. It was extraordinary how the whole camp looked to Britain to help, and were not disappointed. When these men left the camp they were changed in mind and broken in body. They were distressed. They were badly dressed and had no money.
When we come to Germany and meet the millions of displaced persons, they will be in exactly the same position, and probably much worse. What organisation is being set up to help them? We heard from the hon. Member who spoke last that the matter has nothing to do with U.N.R.R.A., but unless those people are assisted mentally, physically and morally we shall witness a terrible tragedy. They will die in their millions, by disease, pestilence and hunger. Surely now is the moment to get busy and organise relief, so that we may know what is to be done with those people. We cannot move them at once, because transport has broken down, and while we clear up the debris we shall have to find food for them. Are we organised for that task?
The Lord President of the Council spoke about the terrible conditions in Holland. I was interested to hear that the

breaches in the dykes were about to be filled. I would point out that even if they are filled this year it is doubtful whether it will not take about seven years before the ground is again productive, and that during that time the people will have to be fed. On D-Day we had a great number of tank landing craft supplying the Army at Caen. At the synthetic port of Arromanches only 15 per cent. of the supplies landed there passed over the causeways. The supplies were in the vast majority of cases run in over the open beaches, and landed by the skill of our sailors. Surely we can organise those fleets for the feeding of Holland? Ports are not needed, but, only good sandy beaches where those craft can be dried out.
In regard to France, transport is requisitioned and so are coal and ships, and the effect on the French is practically starvation. In the South of France now the percentage of premature babies is rising by leaps and bounds, and the weight of the babies is very poor. Poverty is increasing. There is no milk, and no baby food can be obtained. Agriculture is seriously impeded by the presence of mines. The Nazi, with his usual cleverness, sowed mines with the harvest, and many fields remain uncut. In the South of France practically the whole of the olive harvest had to be left because of the minefields. Among the great necessities of France now are mine detectors.
As to man-power in France, there are, at least, 200,000 mechanics and drivers unemployed. Can they not be given a job? I have myself seen Pioneer squadrons preparing roads miles behind the front, watched by gaping Frenchmen who had nothing to do. Could we not have used them, given them work and given them part of our Army ration? At a chantier at Lille we saw the extraordinary spectacle of Frenchmen who worked there standing ill-clad and starving, watching Italian labourers, our collaborators—call them what you will—well clothed and given a hot meal. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) spoke of the great anger caused in France at the sight of German prisoners gorging themselves on American Army rations. That is very true. I have seen it myself, and the French have told me how absolutely disgusted, disappointed and broken in spirit they are to see these


Nazis, who have taken the best from their country, now gorging and guzzling while they starve.
I would like to read a report which has been issued by the Quakers who are working in France. This is what they say:
Life in France to-day requires a courage and persistence of effort, especially from mothers of families, that is hardly recognised in this country. The amount of patience and goodwill that meets one … gives one hope for the future of France. If this patience and goodwill now strained to the utmost, should give way before the impossibility of keeping children fed and warmed, the future of that country would be dark indeed. A little more food, a little more fuel at once, the knowledge that their near neighbour across the Channel was sending help at this moment, making available stores that could be replaced later, in order that the children should be warmed and fed now, might make all the difference to the possibility of that patience and goodwill holding on until adequate arrangements can be made by the French Government for its tried and suffering people.
The Deputy Prime Minister has just announced the most magnificent gesture which this country has made in sending 900,000 tons of food to France. I ask him to see that this news is broadcast to France, that they understand that their neighbour across the small stretch of water is really stretching out a hand to help, and doing all it can to aid its suffering neighbour.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: My hon. and gallant Friend, speaking in great degree from his personal experience, made a valuable addition to the survey which the Deputy Prime Minister gave of the actual position on the Continent, so far as he had seen it. I think that what he has said will add to the feeling of apprehension which is in the minds of many of us as to whether the existing machinery, or indeed any machinery which we can foreshadow at this moment, will really be equal to the task of dealing with this situation as it may very well develop. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), opened this Debate with two very moderate speeches. They represented very faithfully the great concern in this country about the situation in liberated Europe, a concern and sympathy which are all the greater because we know that the countries which have suffered most are those

which have done the most to resist the Germans during the period of occupation, and have therefore incurred their enmity and the full weight of their brutal methods.
The speech of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves me with a sense of doubt whether the gravity of the situation is fully realised. We are living in days when events march with exceeding rapidity. Within a few weeks the situation may be entirely changed. In Northern Italy we may have some 20,000,000 Italians added to our charge, Italians who by all accounts are doing valuable work in resisting the German occupation. Within a time which we hope will be short up to 20,000,000 displaced persons, who are suffering most terribly, may be added to the responsibilities thrust upon the existing organisation, and at any moment one might hope that some 5,500,000 people, if so many are alive in Holland North of the river, will become an additional charge upon the Allied organisation. I do not intend to speak for long, but I cannot refrain from adding my voice to those of the Noble Lord and of others who have already spoken, on behalf of the people of Northern Holland. The Noble Lord said that hundreds and thousands would die if relief were not brought to them quickly. That was an understatement indeed. They are dying now, they have been dying for weeks. They have been going from the great towns into the country lanes to look for food, and the roads are littered with corpses, because the Germans have not allowed the Dutch people to bury them.
Our Government may or may not have underestimated the burden which was to be laid upon them, the difficulties and magnitude of which have not been experienced before. They could not estimate the unlimited brutalities of the Germans towards the people in the occupied countries. That brutality has reached the very limits, one would have hoped, in Holland. The German broadcast message saying that from then onwards the ration system would stagnate really meant that it would stop. Looking at the situation by and large, making allowance for every difficulty—and heaven knows there have been enough—I do not think we can be at all satisfied with the position to-day. The Deputy Prime Minister told us that


the situation had been held, but the situation in France is that she is without food and other necessities, and in Holland and Belgium it is such that it cannot be held at its present level without very serious political and even military consequences arising in the course of time. That is the position we are faced with at the present moment, and we must see what more can be done.
Nobody can question the ability of the Allied nations to solve these questions. The people who organised the invasion of the Continent on D-Day, and the people who arranged the man-power of this country as it has been arranged throughout this war, the people who organised the crossing of the Rhine, prove that we can do what we like, what we want to do, if we make up our minds about it and want it badly enough. I ask myself whether the existing machinery is adequate to the task. We know that the Combined Boards in America have done magnificent work. It would be difficult to over-estimate the economic importance of what they have been doing in directing supplies to the common need. That leads me to refer, in passing, to what has been said by more than one speaker about the arguments, I think in the main misleading and mischievous, going on about the food situation and the relative sacrifices of different countries. As to the U.S.A. I would say: I cannot for a moment think that the country which conceived the idea of Lend-Lease, the greatest, and as far as I know the only, successful piece of international Socialism which has ever been carried into effect, because it means "from each according to his means and to each according to his necessities," will fall short of any further demand which may be made upon it.
The important thing is that the facts should be known, and they should be placed fairly and squarely before the people of all countries. It is for that reason that the noble Lord has rendered great service to-day in securing this Debate, so that the facts may be known, so that many misleading ideas may be dismissed and the situation faced. As I say, the Combined Boards have done a great piece of work. The Army, with its other difficulties, has done well, though not, I think, too well. After all, disappointments arise, as someone has

already said, from the exaggerated ideas which were formed about the possibilities of U.N.R.R.A. I would remind the House of the statement in the preamble of the United Nations, when U.N.R.R.A. was founded:
Being determined that immediately upon the liberation of any area by the Armed Forces of the United Nations or as a consequence of retreat of the enemy, the population thereof shall receive aid and relief from their sufferings, food, clothing and shelter, and in the prevention of pestilence and in the recovery of the health of the people, and that preparations and arrangements shall be made for the return of prisoners and exiles to their homes and for assistance in the resumption of urgently needed agricultural and industrial production and the restoration of essential services.
That was the statement, and it was received with wonderful enthusiasm everywhere as a new ideal for international co-operation. U.N.R.R.A. never had the powers or the opportunities to do any of these things. One hopes it may yet do very valuable work.
The apprehension of the people of this country with regard to the situation as it may develop was very considerably increased by the great gravity of the words which were used by the Secretary of State for War, towards the end of his speech in introducing the Army Estimates. He said:
though we have got so far without disaster, I do not conceal from the House that in the coming months the demands for foodstuffs may become almost overpowering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 66.]
He went on to draw a picture of the whole resources of the Allies being overstrained in trying to avoid starvation. When he said "starvation" he meant death from starvation, because starvation already exists over a large portion of the Continent of Europe.
We must ask ourselves whether in U.N.R.R.A. and the operations of the military forces of the Governments concerned, there is the machinery which can cope with this situation-20,000,000 displaced persons, and, beyond that, the situation as it may develop in Germany itself, where there will be a population which, whatever we think or do about it, will constitute a very serious problem. I notice that there has been criticism of U.N.R.R.A. It was even mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Montreal Conference in


September when he said that they had only a few days in Montreal to determine once and for all whether U.N.R.R.A. could do the great tasks which had been allotted to it, or whether this great conception was to disappear in disillusion.

Earl Winterton: Even more serious was the implied criticism of the Prime Minister of Australia of the British and U.S.A. Governments for failing to give the support to U.N.R.R.A. which they could have given. That was a most significant speech.

Mr. White: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. The Minister of State went on to say that the question was, whether it was to perform the purpose which was hoped for it, or whether this great purpose was to disappear in disillusion. We wonder what is in the minds of people who say these things. As my right hon. Friend said, Dr. Evatt has been most outspoken in his criticism. But we do not need to go to Australia for that sort of thing. The European Committee, on 13th February this year, passed a resolution, which was supported by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, Sir George Rendell, and others. The aim was to free the European organisation from some of the red tape which prevented it carrying out its work. I notice that that resolution has been accepted by the Council of U.N.R.R.A. It is a most welcome sign that a scheme of greater decentralisation is being promoted. You cannot deal with famine on principles of accountancy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield asked, Where is the food to come from? Some time ago the chairman of the combined food organisations said that if they could secure the co-operation of Governments they could supply the overall needs of Europe in 1945. He went on to explain that that did not mean that we could move rapidly to a full diet, but that a normal calory programme of rations could be provided. He mentioned things in short supply, especially meat and fats, which will be in short supply for five or ten years, or even more, on the Continent; but he said that if the co-operation of Governments could be secured the overall needs could be supplied. What Governments are not co-operating? Perhaps we can be told something about that.
From what has been said here to-day, and from my own study of these matters, such as it is, I think that the Government ought to give immediate consideration to

the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that an organisation should be set up on the lines of that which operated in the last war, with an economic general staff. One thinks of the desolate and devastated Germany, with its immense population and 20,000,000 displaced persons. It is rather unfortunate that displaced persons are discussed as if they were a problem to be dealt with by themselves. We will fail utterly if we fail in the first instance to rehabilitate and feed the people in the countries from which they come. There are 500,000 Dutchmen who have been taken into Germany. You cannot take them back to Holland in any short period of weeks. They have to be dealt with on the spot. Many others have to be dealt with at the time. Action must be sharp, and it must be decisive; otherwise, these displaced persons will start legging it towards their homes, and many will die on the way. This is a problem of the greatest gravity, and I cannot see that the machinery which we have operating at present is adequate—I hope I am wrong. I think my right hon. Friend has made out the case for immediate attention to be given to the question of an overriding authority, which will be able to view the situation as a whole throughout Europe. It is on that note that I close. The situation is grave; the people of this country are concerned about it. They find great difficulty in understanding the great discrepancy between our outstanding, miraculous, success in the military field and our comparative lack of success in meeting the human needs of the civil population of the liberated countries.

7.37 p.m.

Major Mort-Radclyffe: It is clear, from the speeches we have listened to, that all hon. Members fully appreciate the importance of this problem. Certainly no one who has seen in liberated Europe the results of malnutrition: the sallow, sunken faces of the aged, the stunted limbs of the young people; or a crowd of children fighting for a ration biscuit, thrown out of the back of an Army truck, can have any illusions as to the urgent need for relief. But to bring relief to liberated countries is easier said than done. It is therefore vitally important that we should remove from the minds of those in liberated countries any misunderstanding, if it exists, as to our capacity to do so. Hungry people do not take a very


charitable view of their neighbours, and it follows that, if the scale of relief is less than liberated Europe anticipates, without a clear explanation being given, we shall be accused of being interested only in ourselves. We shall be told that our high-sounding phrases about post-war reconstruction in Europe have only a rather dull echo as soon as the physical threat from Germany has been overcome. Such aspersions, if they are forthcoming, will certainly be unjustified. Let us, therefore, say, quite clearly, that we will render all possible assistance to liberated Europe; but that our resources are not unlimited, and that as soon as the war with Germany is over the war in the Far East must clearly be a first priority call on our shipping, and that relief supplies to liberated countries are inevitably bound up with the amount of shipping available. In other words, let us try to explain to those in liberated countries that you cannot, however much you may wish to do so, put a gallon into a half-pint jug. But it is not only shipping which is involved in this problem of relief. As the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, it is useless merely to dump sacks of wheat on a quay if neither rail nor road transport is available to convey these sacks into the interior for distribution to whatever region most urgently needs them. In this respect I hope that the Government will, when considering the needs of any particular country, pay close attention to the comparative values and priorities of actual stocks of food, compared with lorries and agricultural machinery, because there are many areas in liberated Europe where 20 or 30 lorries are worth several hundred tons of wheat, if those lorries can be used to transport existing stocks of food inside those countries to regions where they are more urgently needed; while looking ahead, a supply of agricultural machinery may make all the difference in certain areas between a good or a bad harvest in 1946, or maybe no harvest at all.
I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War if, when he replies, he will explain the actual division of responsibility between the military and U.N.R.R.A., in those countries where U.N.R.R.A. is going to operate. As I understand the problem, when U.N.R.R.A. enters a country and begins to operate its organisation must make

some claim upon the military for the use of transport., which only the military at this moment possess. I hope that my right hon. Friend will clear up the doubts which exist, certainly in my mind and perhaps in the minds of other hon. Members, on that point.
Just as close co-operation with our Allies has brought us within sight of victory, so only similar co-operation, with particular reference to the United States, can enable us to tackle successfully the colossal problem of rehabilitation in Europe. That being so, we owe it to our fellow-countrymen to ensure that the joint contribution, and the sacrifices which that contribution involves, are borne fairly by all alike. I hope therefore that we shall explain very frankly to our American friends—and I am sure that they will not misunderstand us—that we in these Islands have worn our belts several holes tighter for a considerably longer period than they have; that, because of our geographical position, the civil population in the British Isles have endured hardships and physical danger which, happily, our friends across the Atlantic have been spared; and that, therefore, when Germany is defeated, partial demobilisation begins, and the troops come home, the British people expect, and rightly so, to be able to let out their belts a hole or two. Let us assure them that we are really anxious to make our full contribution to the relief of liberated countries but that, surely, they on the other side of the Atlantic would be the last people who would wish us, in making that contribution, to be forced to wear our belts tighter than they are wearing theirs.
Lastly, the problem of bringing relief to the liberated countries is both one of extreme urgency on grounds of simple humanity, and also one of first class, long term political and economic importance, because the sooner the relief is sent to the liberated countries, the sooner something like normal conditions can be reestablished, in which the flow of goods from one country to another can begin again to the mutual advantage of all. It is, to my mind, to put the cart before the horse to expect any Government in a recently liberated country to maintain its authority within its territory until the people inside that territory are reasonably fed, because no Government, whatever its political complexion, can possibly be expected to hold down a situation where bread riots and strikes are the order


of the day. We must not forget that, ever since Hitler realised that he could not win the war in the military sense, he has been endeavouring to do the Samson act. He has been trying to bring down the pillars of European civilisation upon his head so that victor and vanquished alike would be crushed beneath them. We, and the United States, are thus in the position of the rescue workers, and we cannot claim to have achieved liberation in the widest sense until we have done all in our power to remove from those who have endured six years of occupation the fear of hunger—and of cold in the winter months—those two twin fears which, throughout the ages, have driven mankind to violence and to despair.

7.48 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I must compliment the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken on the realism with which he has viewed the situation, and I venture to think that, the more speeches we have, the closer we get to seeing the real situation, instead of deceiving ourselves by making the picture look too fair. The Noble Lord who opened the Debate confined his attention to France, Belgium and Holland. I do not quarrel with that, excepting to say that that is by no means the whole of Europe, and that, when the whole of Europe comes to be liberated after victory over Germany, the situation will be more aggravated than anything which now appears. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) dealt with the same countries. I venture to think, however, that the situation that faces us in Europe is really much more serious than anyone has yet dared to say. It is a very much graver situation indeed; in fact, I do not think that we realise how very bad that situation is.
I would like the House for a moment to cast its mind back to the beginning of this war, and to remember what we thought of the war then and how very badly we were deceived about the war. The House will remember how, up to the time of May, 1940, we thought, or some people thought, and even Ministers of the Government thought, that this was going to be a comfortable war. I remember that, when I went out to Arras to General Headquarters and went to see various military formations there, in May, 1940, I was told at that time of the previous visit of a Minister of the Crown, who had

got people round him and said, "Gentlemen, this is going to be a comfortable war." He was not anyone who is a Minister at the present time. To a very large number of other people, that period was rightly known as the "phoney war," and that view of the war was due to a completely wrong what I might call staff appreciation of the war. About that time, or rather shortly afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a statement about liberation. He made that statement on. 20th August, 1940, and it has already been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, but I want to draw attention to it again, because it shows, even from the Prime Minister, an undue optimism about the possibility of relief and rehabilitation in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We can and we will arrange in advance for the speedy entry of food into any part of the enslaved area in Europe,
and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The certainty that the shattering of the Nazi power will bring to them all"—
that is, all the enslaved countries—
immediate food, freedom and peace,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th Aug., 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1162.]
Well, we have liberated France. We have liberated Belgium. We have liberated a portion of Holland, and we have not brought to them food, and we have not, excepting in a rather unreal sense, brought peace, but we have given them, at any rate, the right to rule themselves. We have had a wrong staff appreciation of the situation.
With regard to the military war, we had to learn by a series of very serious calamities. We had to go through the school of the retreat to Dunkirk. We had to endure the impact on us of the fall of France, and of Belgium, the vast scale invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany, which had not been anticipated, the terrible experience of Pearl Harbour and disasters in the Far East which we now tend to forget, although we are now dealing with the results, and, finally, we had to learn our lessons in the great school of desert warfare. We had to get out of the period of the "phoney war" by learning the realities of the war. I venture to say that we are now in the period of the "phoney peace," and we have got to learn to get out of the


"phoney peace" by appreciating the realities of the situation and by getting a right staff appreciation of what the situation is.
I say this because I have lately had an experience similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, with whose statements, so far as they go, I have no quarrel. During the months of January and February I spent a rather longer time than did the right hon. Gentleman on precisely the same matter of investigating the conditions in France and Belgium, and in getting a little information about conditions in Holland. I got my facts, not from talks with Ministers, but by somewhat painstakingly examining such statistics as are available, and there are considerable numbers available, and by cross-examining large numbers of people in different positions, by visiting factories, schools and other places in an endeavour to get an appreciation of the situation. I regret to say that my appreciation is that the situation in France is very much graver than we have been led to think. I do not mean to say that I think the situation is one which cannot be remedied. On the contrary, I think it can. I think that, in regard to France, it is easier to remedy than has been suggested.
I have in my hand a map of France, on which all the different Departments are marked, and I have marked on this map the respective death rates, or rather the increase or diminution of the death rate, during the war according to those Departments. It is interesting to notice that, when one gets a map of this kind—and I got this from the Institute of Hygiene in Paris—it shows clearly that, in the agricultural areas, there has been a diminution of the death rate, because the food situation has been good, but in the urban and industrial areas in the North of France, in Paris and the Seine, at Bordeaux, Marseilles, Lyons and certain other regions, where food is not produced, the death rate has gone up. But always, in near proximity, that is to say within 100 or 150 miles of these urban areas, there is a region marked as a productive agricultural region, and this applies to the South, Centre and the North of France, and these agricultural productive regions could have been reached if there had been transport available.
I am quite aware that one cannot visit France even for a few days, without being aware of the very bad condition of transport on the roads and the railways, but I do believe that, if a considerable number of motor vehicles could be provided, sent to different regions of France and put at the disposal of the French people—some to go to Marseilles, some to Bordeaux, some to Lyons and others to other parts of France affected by the failure to deliver food supplies—it would be a great help. I say vehicles, because there are any number of unemployed French drivers and mechanics who could maintain them, and all that would be required would be that we should send a few people to look after a motor convoy with just a few British drivers and mechanics for maintenance. I believe that, if convoys of that kind were sent to different parts of France, it might not be necessary for us to send food at all, but the supply of transport would go a very considerable distance towards relieving the situation in France. I do not say that this would go the whole way. I think there would still be great difficulties.
While on the other side, I also had the opportunity of seeing a large number of Bailey bridges in the forward areas of Belgium, Holland and up into Germany, and, knowing how easy it is to put up these Bailey bridges where rivers have to be crossed, I suggest that it might be possible to allow the civilian population to have the use of some of these most excellent and admirable inventions, which almost everyone who has seen them wants to possess. I should love to have one; they are the most delightful things. I believe that we might, by supplying motor transport, and a certain amount of bridging material, do a great deal more to help France without sending food. I do not say we should not send food; we should, and one food we should send, probably, is fats, of which there is a world shortage.
In the beginning of my speech I drew attention to the declaration of the Prime Minister, that liberation would immediately bring food, freedom and peace, and I want to emphasise that because it is on the basis of that declaration that U.N.R.R.A. was set up. That declaration was, in substance, accepted at the meeting of representatives of the Allied Governments which met at St. James's Palace on 24th September, 1941. They


accepted, as something which could be carried out as soon as victory was achieved, that food, freedom and peace would immediately follow. Then, later on, on the same wrong appreciation of the situation, U.N.R.R.A. was set up on 9th November, 1943—set up by 44 United and Associated Nations which agreed to form the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association. Since that time, U.N.R.R.A. has done a very great deal of valuable work. It has made a survey of world resources of food and materials and a world survey of staff available, and it has a great many people in its employ. It has set up an organisation which, if it had the power and authority behind it, could do a very great deal, but, unfortunately, it has not the power and it has not the authority. There is nothing wrong with the personnel of U.N.R.R.A. or with the valuable information that they have; the only thing is that the personnel have not the power and authority to act, and, therefore, the information they have is not much use to them. Reference has been made to the very severe criticisms of U.N.R.R.A. which were made at the Far Eastern meeting of U.N.R.R.A. held in July of last year. At that time Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister for External Affairs, who was leader of the Australian Delegation to the Far Eastern meeting of U.N.R.R.A., said:
Something of a crisis is emerging in relation to U.N.R.R.A.'s affairs and functions. The question arises whether U.N.R.R.A. will in fact get to grips or be permitted to get to grips with the task for which it was created.
Later on he said:
It must be admitted by any candid observer that there are signs of frustration and disillusionment. This is due to the fact that, despite much elaborate organisation, U.N.R.R.A. has not yet functioned to any extent in the actual work of relief and rehabilitation of Europe.
That was Dr. Evatt's opinion, which was so strongly backed at that particular meeting of the Far Eastern organisation of U.N.R.R.A., that they passed a resolution urging certain reforms along the lines of Dr. Evatt's suggestions. There is no doubt that U.N.R.R.A. got a shake up and is trying to pull itself together. But you cannot get the work of U.N.R.R.A. done by the U.N.R.R.A. organisation because it has not got the power. When the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) was speaking just now

he made the suggestion that what was wanted in Europe at the present time is something like the Supreme Economic Council, which was formed after the end of the last war, and I have not the least doubt that is exactly what is required. You want a supreme economic staff for Europe. Do not throw away the valuable personnel or the valuable information that U.N.R.R.A. has got. Use U.N.R.R.A. as the Civil Service of your supreme economic staff. It is an excellent thing but it has not power and authority. The only organisation that could have the power and authority to do the work which is necessary in the desperate state of Europe at the present time is an organisation acting at the level of national Governments. It must be an organisation made up of representatives of the United Nations in the European theatre. It does not seem to be impossible to set it up. We have had to make all kinds of changes in our war organisations since the war began in order to compel the victory. If we do not make changes in our peace organisation in regard to meeting the elementary needs of the liberated peoples we shall certainly have a first-class disaster, and I am afraid that Hitler will be able to register a very considerable victory.
Let me say one or two of the things which were said to me many times when in France and Belgium, not by irresponsible people, but by very responsible people. They said that the food conditions in Paris since liberation are much worse than they were under the Germans, and they are. People in Belgium—and they were people of authority and well disposed to us and particularly some of the people working all out in connection with the extremely valuable welfare arrangements for the British Army in Brussels—said to me: "Food conditions in Belgium are worse than they were under the Germans." It is no good basing your appreciation upon the over-optimistic words of the Prime Minister when he said that there' would be an immediate supply of food to the liberated populations. In fact in France and Belgium, the conditions now are worse than they were under the Germans. The food situation is an arrangement which has been deliberately engineered by the Germans. Everyone in this House has been talking to-night as if conditions of semi-starvation and deprivation which have come into existence


have happened fairly recently, almost during the last year. It is nothing of the sort. If you examine the statistics—and they are obtainable—you will find that the ration scales provided by the Germans for large numbers of the population in France were deliberately insufficient right back to 1940 and 1941. It was a piece of deliberate policy to underfeed large sections of the population.
The Lord President of the Council said to-day that during the occupation of France by Germany the black market was patriotic. In one sense it was, but in another sense the black market was an institution out of which a large number of individual Germans made a very large amount of money. There is no doubt whatever about that. The Germans themselves encouraged it. They knew all about things going to various people and they did not mind. They used the black market—I want to emphasise this because it is known to a very large number of people whose opinions must be heard—as a means of demoralising the French people. Another aspect of the French situation, perhaps quite as important as the deprivation of food, is the division caused among French people, in individual families, the division of those who were inclined to collaborate and those who were inclined to belong to the resistance movement. I wonder whether hon. Members have ever thought what collaborating means. Think of the position of a workman employed in a factory, where the employer he had before the war was still there under the Germans and said to him, "You must get on with making these motor wagons and you will get good rations"—and they got extra rations. The man might make these things without any thought at all that those motor wagons were to be used by the Germans as war material. Is such a man a collaborator or not for working in a factory, with the alternative of having his family starve and he himself be unable to do anything at all? That is the kind of insidious problem. Am I a collaborator? What am I to do? Am I to be a resister? How am I going to be fed? That kind of thing has divided French families and caused an extraordinary amount of psychological suffering among French people.
I do not know how many Members of this House have been over to France

since it has been possible to get over there more or less easily. One of the things that struck me when over there was not only the lack of food; I was there during the period of intense cold and there was very great suffering from cold. There was practically no coal anywhere at all, not even in offices and shops and everything was freezing. But also there was the fact that every day in the newspapers—and I read many newspapers—there was a little list of the number of collaborators who had been shot. It was a grim business to read every day that a certain number of people were shot. There was a horrible psychological situation there. This Nazi policy of demoralisation as well as underfeeding is a very serious thing and is having one of its successes at the present time. It has produced a social situation which is very difficult for us to handle. Then think of the difficulties in the occupied part of Holland at the present time which are much greater than those of which I have been speaking. There will be frightful difficulties, worse than those in France and Belgium, in Norway and in Denmark, and there are great difficulties in Yugoslavia, great difficulties in Greece, appalling difficulties in Poland and in Czechoslovakia.
The question not only of the nutrition and ordinary feeding of people but of the political stability of these countries is a very serious one indeed. Unless we can really make a plan to feed and rehabilitate those countries on a big scale, unless we set up an economic staff for dealing with this civil aspect of the war on a scale as large as the staff required to plan D-Day for our military operations, I do not believe that we shall get out of our difficulties for a good many years to come.
In his survey the Deputy Prime Minister said that fortunately there had not been epidemics up to the present. It is quite true, but the soil in which epidemics grow is being spread all over the land of Europe at the present time. Underfed, cold, ill-clad, under-employed, miserable people are those in whom epidemics very easily and readily grow and there are, of course, foci, from which epidemics may spread, of typhus fever, malignant malaria and other forms of malaria, and other diseases in various parts of Europe. Prevention is very urgent indeed. I do not think U.N.R.R.A. can handle this problem. I do not think anything but a staff


organisation, with a standing equal with Governments, and made up of representative Governments, can possibly handle this organisation. Transport is required, but trade and exports are required. Food is required, but consumer goods are required. In France a great many of the peasants have so many 1,000 franc notes that they do not count them, they weigh them by the pound. That is literally true. They will not do anything with those notes because they cannot buy anything in the shops. It is not only a problem of consumer goods but one of local administration and local government, and of national government. You will not have local government stable, or national government stable, unless you can bring not only physical help, but direction and assistance. Do not think for a moment that this nation can stand outside. We are one of the countries of Europe that need rehabilitation. We have our tremendous housing problem, for instance, and we in this country are also the possible prey of epidemics if they start on any large scale in Europe.
Worst of all is this, that unless we, as the representatives of the democratic Powers—I mean France, Belgium, the United States, all the democratic Powers—can bring help and feeding to liberated Europe, then what is to be the view of those who have endured the occupation of Germany, who have been impregnated with the propaganda of the Nazis over a period of years? They will be balancing up in their minds as to which is best—the Nazi system or the democratic system—and Nazism will, I am afraid, find many converts to its damnable creed unless we can help the people at the present time and show them that democracy really means peace, food and freedom. This country is in that too. The danger of Nazism, the danger that it will grow horribly like some accursed creature which, if you cut its head off still goes on growing in 100 pieces, that danger is a very real one.
We must have the general economic staff for Europe on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University and we must have that now. I suggest that we should take as our model the Economic and Social Council which is a part of the Charter of the World Organisation to be adopted on the 25th of April next and subsequent days at San

Francisco. I hope that can be done but, in any case, we cannot wait for San Francisco. We ought to act now because, unless we act now, we shall certainly have anarchy in Europe. The British, the United States and the Soviet Governments ought to take immediate steps to set up an emergency organisation to carry out the economic civil planning of our European civilisation, and this European Council should, at once, take all peace problems—food problems, health problems, the rehabilitation of industry, transport—into its consideration, regard them all as matters of urgency, and then we shall have a real peace and not the "phoney" peace which I am afraid will only be the backdoor into Nazism again.

8.16 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure this Debate will have served a very useful purpose if it brings home to the people of this country the fact that we may, ourselves, be on short commons, if we are going to do our duty by those who have stood with us. I am afraid I feel that this is so serious a problem, that a great many of our social schemes may come to naught, if it is found necessary to reduce the amount of food available to people in this country. It seems to me that, until now, when this Debate has taken place, too little has been said in the House as to the appalling danger at our very gates. I had an opportunity a few days ago, when on the other side, of meeting people who are suffering, and also of meeting those who are struggling with a most difficult situation. I do not think it would be right for this Debate to take place without someone saying what a wonderful job is being done by the British officers of the Civil Affairs branch and the American officers associated with them. They have a very difficult task and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) was describing the difficulties of U.N.R.R.A. and saying that he thought that those who are now working in Civil Affairs should be transferable to U.N.R.R.A., there was one point that I think was even more important. U.N.R.R.A. cannot function, unless invited by the Government of the country, and I have yet to meet any of the Governments of those countries who wish U.N.R.R.A. to function, if it is going to be detrimental to their own status and


position. It is quite a natural attitude to take.
There is one other matter which I do not think has been dealt with to-day, and to which I attach very great importance. We have heard a great deal about the problem in France, which is very largely one of transportation, and I was sorry to hear the Lord President say to-day that he would not contemplate the idea of bringing some of the French mechanics who are out of work in France over to this country to put in order some of the lorries—about 8,000 or something of that nature—which are waiting for repairs. Our problem here is man-power—there is a great shortage of mechanics in this country as we all know. These unemployed French mechanics could quite well, as far as I can see, be accommodated in camps. In many cases it means the "cannibalisation" of the lorries, in order to get the spare parts, and the fact of towing broken-down lorries to the ports and taking them off will complicate the work of the ports and is not one which I think the military authorities would welcome. The enormous amount of transport necessary to maintain the Armies is not, I think, appreciated, and when, one realises that the greater the speed, the greater the number of lorries required for the maintenance of the Army, quite naturally, that must be the first claim. Secondly, it is a matter of very great urgency to increase the stock of lorries available in France which, at the present time, is lamentably short from the civil point of view.
I had to see the head of the French railways, and I had a long talk to him in regard to the requirements of the French railroads. I asked him what the average demurrage on wagons was in France, and he told me that it was from 15 to 18 days. If you are going to have demurrage of that nature, and a stock of wagons is required at that scale of demurrage it is far better if you can get your wheels moving, to off-load your wagons, and distribute the goods which are in them. He told me that the French railways were very short of collection and delivery lorries, and that if they could have more it would reduce the demurrage on wagons from 15 days to something like six days, which is the figure for Belgium. So I hope that the matter earl be reconsidered with a view to speed-

ing up repair of the lorries which are available in this country and in the Middle East, and getting the men transferred to France in order to assist traffic on the railways. There are, to-day, in France, about 450,000 unemployed, many of them trained mechanics who have nothing to do, and who I hoped might have been brought here to do that kind of work.
There is another matter, in regard to Belgium, which I think important. There is a great shortage of coal in factories and an accumulation of stocks at the pitheads, simply and solely because there are no wagons available to convey the coal to the factories and get them working. That is partly due to the hold-up caused by Rundstedt's offensive in the Ardennes, from which district all the pit-props come for use in the Belgium pits, and until that can be put right, the internal economic situation in Belgium will be very difficult. But quite apart from the conditions in France and Belgium, I think we ought to concentrate our attention on two other countries—one Holland, and the other, which has not yet been mentioned, Italy. Inundations have put out of use very large tracts of land in Holland and General Galloway, who is in charge of civil affairs administration there, has done a wonderful job. As the Lord President of the Council said, the fact that conditions in the liberated areas are better than he expected is very largely due to the co-operation of General Galloway and his Civil Affairs officers with the local Dutch administrators. That co-operation has been a model of the action which should be taken.
The position in regard to the future of Holland is one of which we ought perpetually to remond ourselves. There are about 1,000,000 acres suffering from inundation, much of it salt-water inundation, and where the tides have broken through the dykes, not only has the saltwater affected the soil but there have been carried with the water large quantities of sand, with which it is very difficult to deal. The re-seeding of these areas will be a great task. There is not enough grass seed available for all requirements, and it seems to me that we can make our contribution if the Minister of Agriculture will encourage the growing of grass seeds here for export to Holland so that they can re-seed. At present Denmark is


unable to export any grass seed. As we all know, the agriculture economy of Holland is largely dairying and the Germans have taken away from the Eastern area, which ought to be self-supporting, a great proportion of the Dutch dairy herds and ordinary cattle. There is also a tremendous shortage of fertilisers. The Germans have removed all the plant from the factory in Holland which made nitrogenous fertilisers. It has not been replaced, and I hope that one of the things we are considering is the delivery, as soon as we can, of the necessary machinery to enable these nitrogenous fertilisers to be produced in Holland in order to help the recovery of the land.
Not long ago there came out of Holland a very gallant Dutchman, from Rotterdam, which, as the House knows, is still in German occupation. He brought with him a complete plan of what he thought should be done to make the port of Rotterdam useful, and I hope that that information is being acted upon. He had the impression that the Germans would cause a great deal of destruction before they were forced to leave, and he had taken that into account. It is absolutely vital, since roads are undermined by inundation and railways are equally in a bad way, that we should do all we can to resuscitate traffic on the Dutch canals. Bridges have been blown down over most of the canals, the mark buoys in the narrow waters of approach to the ports have been taken up and that means that a large number of launches and smaller craft should be made available in order to assist in the distribution of food. Reports from Rotterdam and Amsterdam are to the effect that the Dutch are literally starving. There is no doubt that the death rate in both those cities has been appallingly high. Whole families have suffered, a great many people have died, and it has been extremely difficult to arrange for burial. The whole economic situation is absolutely appalling.
Of the 4,500,000 people in the Western district of Holland it is safe to assume that 1,000,000 will not be physically able to digest ordinary food-stuffs. The Lord President mentioned that pre-digested foods were to be sent into the country. I do not know whether Members can take their minds back to the Bengal famine of two years ago, and the report of the India Office as to the difficulties and how they were met by the Army in

India and by the Indian Medical Service. That report makes a wonderful story, and there is a great dealt to be learned from it. There is no doubt that in Holland it will be necessary to distribute a very great deal of pre-digested food-stuffs. As the House knows, the scheme for bringing Dutch children to this country is working well, and I hope we shall have more and more of them because I am sure their reception here will be very genuine. It is essential, however, that these children should first go to hostels in order that they shall not be killed by kindness. If they first had to eat ordinary food they would suffer and it has been arranged that after their sojourn in these hostels, until they are accustomed to ordinary food, they can then be passed on to British families.
There is one other thing I would like to suggest, again to the Minister of Agriculture. In Holland there are many excellent farmers and smallholders whose lands have been completely inundated. It will take five or seven years before they can get anything out of that land, and I believe there are many farmers in this country who would be only too delighted to welcome some of these Dutch agriculturists and obtain their help to produce food in this country, some of which will go back to Holland. Further, such a step would help to break down general prejudices and misunderstandings which have existed about Dutch agriculture, and its competitive attitude towards British agriculture. I am sure that the two things are complementary, and that the Dutch character is very much like our own. We understand the Dutch people, and they understand us. We are not dealing with Latins, but with people who think very much as we do. I am sure that if we could have some of those Dutch agriculturists here, it would help us in our agricultural effort and give them a chance of a living, because otherwise that portion of the Netherlands nation that depends on the land for a living will be out of work and unable to earn money, and will therefore be a burden on whatever relief organisation there may be.
There is another matter affecting Holland about which I want to speak. The whole system of communication in that country is very largely dependent upon bicycles, and the Germans have taken Practically every bicycle from the country. The Dutch are accustomed to go long distances to their work on


bicycles, and now that they have been deprived of them, they have no means of movement. I hope this matter is being considered as part of the necessary recovery. It may sound a small matter, but it is an important one from the point of view of getting the people from their homes to the factories in urban areas. There is a great shortage of tyres for motor cars and bicycles, as the Germans have taken all the tyres they could get from the country. I hope that position can be remedied.
I do not think anything has been said in the Debate about Italy. Italy is certainly a part of Europe, but the other countries that have been discussed lie closer to us and are more in our minds. We have to remember the great feats of the Allied Armies in Italy. We have had long experience in Italy of how to look after liberated territory. Certainly, we have had some lessons in regard to the local and national government of Italy, lessons in what to do and what not to do; but I doubt whether the House or the country realises the appalling situation that confronts our Armies in Italy. The policy of the Germans has been to use the war potential of Italian factories for their own purposes. An officer who has, I believe, every means of knowing what he is talking about, has told me that there were trains passing through the Brenner Pass at a rate of about 33 a day going North and that the estimate was that about 450,000 tons of raw materials and all sorts of things necessary to the Germans were going through the Brenner Pass. We know that the Germans have taken over 1,000 kilometres of railway track, taking the second line of the double track and leaving a single track; they have taken away the overhead wires of the electric system of the trains in Northern Italy; they have made preparations to destroy the hydro-electric generating stations in the Alps; and we know, or should know, that the whole manufacturing capacity of Northern Italy is mostly dependent upon hydro-electric power. Sixty per cent. of the population of Italy is centred in that Northern portion. These people are the most virile type of Italians. In Milan, Turin and elsewhere there are those great factories which the Germans undoubtedly used for their own purposes, and one rather wonders what the position will be as the

Allied Forces advance further North. There is no doubt that the position has been rather like the squeezing of a tube of toothpaste. There has been the squeeze at one end as the British advanced and at the other end the essential things were being taken into Germany. When our advance stopped that exit of material stopped also.
We may hope that the position of the Germans is now so precarious that they will not possibly oppose our advance. Nevertheless, the situation that will confront our Civil Affairs officers as they go into Northern Italy will be far more difficult than any situation that has arisen in France or Belgium, and for this reason, that the Italian people are very excitable, that the ports will be undoubtedly wrecked and damaged, and that the railways, such as they are, working under a very low rate of diesel locomotives instead of working electrically, will be unable to carry much traffic There will be literally hundreds of thousands of workers unable to do any work in the factories, there will be very great difficulties in importing foodstuffs or material to get the internal economy of the country running. There will be this vast population without food, with poor clothing, with boots especially lacking. Even if we had the material and the will we would not have the ability because of physical deficiencies to carry the food from the ships to the centre of the Lombardy Plain.
That is a situation that we ought to contemplate in advance, and it brings me back to what hon. Members have generally agreed in this Debate. Few of us in this House have the experience which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University has, and all that he says is well worth our attention. It seems to me that there is no time to be lost in establishing something on the lines that he suggested, such as a reconstruction council, or whatever one may call it. I hope the House realises that we owe a debt to General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander, for having shown how it is possible, without jealousy and without difficulty, to make a wonderful machine work in such a way that one does not know whether a job is being done by an American or a British officer, the whole thing being so completely integrated. There are that spirit and that organisation both at SHAEF and at Supreme Headquarters in. Italy. There is the knowledge


that these officers have acquired and there is the co-operation. A great many of them feel that it is for them to administer the instructions which they get; but surely it is for us in this House to find out the difficulties that confront them and to make their task easier.
One of their difficulties was mentioned by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is true that under the Geneva Convention we have to feed prisoners with a similar ration to that of our own troops, but when there is so great a discrepancy between the British Army ration and the American Army ration, surely the situation becomes farcical. A German captured by an American lives on a ration twice as great as he would have if he were captured by British troops. Surely, some arrangement can be made—perhaps the Secretary of State for War will be able to tell us that it has been done already—whereby there can be fixed a common denominator, which I think ought to be the British ration; if it is good enough for the British, it is good enough for the Germans. It seems to me that it is entirely unnecessary to feed German prisoners on the scale of American rations. Of course, it is not for us to say what Congress should vote to the American enlisted men, but I think we could make that suggestion as regards enemy prisoners.
I have no more to say, except that I think the officers who are engaged in this work know far more of the frightful dangers that confront us than do most people in this country and even m this House. I believe we are going through five years of far greater difficulties than we have experienced when we have been fighting the common enemy. I think our enemies are going to be disease, hunger, pestilence, famine, misery amongst children, the difficulties of Nazi youth and how to handle them, and the greater our difficulties the more happy will be the small nucleus of Nazis, who may try to hold out in some mountain fastnesses. It is a desperate future, but it is one which we cannot leave to chance. I am afraid I feel that it has been made very difficult for U.N.R.R.A. to function in many ways and U.N.R.R.A. by itself cannot meet the situation. I am absolutely convinced that nobody is more anxious and more determined to see we do win the war by properly administering the liberated districts, than those responsible

for our victorious advance. What we ought to do in this House is, at once, to try and get this reconstruction council appointed, and see to it that the organisation of civil affairs, which is working admirably shall have the chance of establishing that council, and not only give it the support of this House but try to get that of America as well.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Emmott: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). Indeed, there has been no real conflict of opinion in the whole of this Debate, but I think, in view of the subject, it is no less significant on that account. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the subject. You may create in San Francisco, or wherever it may be, the most excellent machinery of peace that the wit of man can devise, and yet if there are in the world millions of human beings on the verge of starvation, or already starving, all your work may be of no avail. Europe is sore stricken; she is wounded with many wounds. Her peoples to-day are in a state of physical exhaustion and spiritual ferment. When men are hungry, disillusioned, angry, desperate, when they have no employment and no prospect of any, when their wives and children are starving, then they are in a temper in which they may do anything. Desperate minds breed desperate action. Men's capacity of fair judgment is destroyed. They are apt to turn upon their true friends. They lend their ears to evil counsellors. It is a grim prospect that opens up before Europe. The Lord President of the Council this afternoon said that it is a dark picture. It is, indeed, and it is a picture that will exist, not only in imagination, but in reality, unless effective remedies are taken immediately.
Britain is not merely a great Imperial Power. She is a great European Power, and therefore she cannot be unaffected by the state of the Continent of Europe. Recent events in Greece proved her interest in the state of the Continent. Greece proved how immediately, and how much to her detriment and to her danger, Britain is affected by these possibilities. It is perfectly true to say that it is the first Continental interest, both of Britain and United States of America, to restore the health of Europe. It is our Christian duty to do this. Whatever action His Majesty's


Government may be compelled to take in this matter I believe deserves and should get the full support of this House. Such action may make the Government unpopular. With the end of the war against Germany, there will be, I think, inevitably, a general expectation of the availability of increased supplies. Yet that expectation may have to be disappointed. Indeed, I think we may—I hope we shall not be—forced to have some reduction. Therefore whatever action the Government may have to take, may easily incur unpopularity, and for that very reason they require our support.
What can this country do to meet these problems? I think she can, in spite of all the difficulties, do a great deal. Indeed, the Lord President of the Council indicated some of the things that are being done. I think she can do a good deal to alleviate the problems of the breakdown of transport in Europe. Transport is second only—if indeed it is second—to the provision of food. I could wish, and I think this should be said, that we in this country were now winning coal in large enough quantities to enable us to export it to foreign countries. Argentina last year was burning maize in her locomotive engines; this year she is burning linseed in the same way. She should be exporting both these commodities to us in exchange for British coal. Egypt was burning in her engines cotton seed which she should be exporting to us for use in margarine and for animal food. I would remind the House that France, Belgium, Holland and Portugal are crying out for British coal.
I agree with everything the hon. Member for Abingdon said on the subject of Italy—how the United States is to-day sending coal to Italy. She is also sending food to that country. I am glad she is sending food, and I think it right that she should do so. The state of the Italian people is very serious. Food stocks are nearly exhausted. I have obtained during the week-end the most recent and authoritative information from Rome on the subject of food, and I think the House might be interested if I set out a few of the facts. It is agreed that the minimum daily ration of calories necessary for health is 2,800. What are available to the Italian children? Only 864. There are 890 for expectant mothers, and just under 1,600

for people engaged in heavy work, which is the highest figure. I have said that no fats are being distributed, but in the black market, when butter is available, it costs £2 per kilo. Milk is 2s. 6d. a litre. Meat, when it is available, costs £2 5s. a kilo and sugar £3 5s. I justify this policy of sending food to Italy not on grounds of sentiment but on the ground of the fundamental interest of the United States and Britain in the restoration of Europe. But how absurd it is that the United States should be sending coal to Italy by that long sea haul. It is we who should be sending coal to Italy.

Mr. Tinker: If we have not got coal, how can we send it?

Mr. Emmott: It is a lamentable fact that we have not the coal to send, but can we not increase production, in order to serve British interests in this way? We should be winning more coal, in return for which we should obtain from Italy valuable olive oil. I think, however, that it is impossible for us to export food to Europe in any quantity which would be adequate to Europe's needs. The Lord President of the Council did valuable service in reminding us that we are a food-importing country, and he was quite right in saying that, even if we diminished our rations, that would not meet the need.
The question remains, Whence is the food that Europe needs to come? I think the undertone, as well as specific statements that have been made in the Debate, leaves no doubt that in the view of the House—and it is true—the United States is the chief source from which this food must come. I fully believe that the President of the United States desires to take action in this matter on a big scale, and I believe the American people as a whole, who are a very generous people, are prepared to support him in his action. Many thousands of Americans in the Services have seen with their own eyes the distress of the people of Europe, and I am sure their experience has fortified their naturally generous sentiments. Here I think the point should be made that there may be a real impediment to effective action by the United States in the possibility of conflict within the American Executive. The structure of the American Constitution is such that it is very easy for a policy approved by the President, or by the Secretary of State, to be whittled away in practice in the passage of the


Measures in which it is expressed through the Departments. The United States has not the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. May I remind the House of what Lord Bryce wrote on this point?
The Administration does not work as a whole. It is not a whole. I t is a group of persons"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We cannot discuss the American Constitution in this Debate.

Mr. Emmott: I wished by a short and relevant quotation only to show why the independence of the separate parts of the Executive Department of the American Government may result in difficulty in executing an agreed policy in its integrity. There is no mistaking the meaning of this Debate. Our duty in this grave and urgent matter is plain. We must spare no effort to discharge it.

8.57 P.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The whole House will agree that running through the Debate from the very commencement there has been a sense of urgency and concern over the grievous need in the liberated countries of Europe, and a sense of anxiety about the even greater need that will be revealed when the Nazis have departed. It is encouraging that there has been such a large measure of unity. I hope it will strengthen the Government in action and in using the whole influence of this country in the counsels of the Allies to secure the maximum of help to those whose need is so great. I hope it will illuminate public opinion so that the people will be able to realise, from the facts and from the personal experiences of some who have taken part in the Debate, how serious the problem is and how grave is the prospect for European civilisation if we do not take the right action now. We have had a most impressive contribution from my right lion. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), and I hope most earnestly that the Government will give urgent consideration to his proposal for the establishment of something like an economic council for Europe, giving an opportunity to the workers who are engaged in the service of U.N.R.R.A. to render fuller service. No one could cast a stone against that organisation or its directors. We all regret that it has not been given as yet, through circumstances over which it has no control, the oppor-

tunity it longs to have. Other particular suggestions have been made which I hope will also receive careful consideration.
I am sure that the country, when it realises the need, will be ready to go on with rationing, and I believe that a great number will be ready to go on even with decreased rations. It is significant that the Executive Committee of the British Council of Churches which unites representatives of all the Protestant churches in this country, issued a statement only a few days ago saying that they would support and urge their members to support the continuance of rationing and, if necessary, even a reduction of the present rations in order that the Government should be able to carry out this essential work for the, well-being of Europe. I am sure that many besides myself have received letters from individuals saying how gladly they would forego some of their present rations if they could by doing so give further help to those in need. There is no need to make pitiful pictures of the misery and need in Europe to-day. We know that it is there, and we know that we have a duty to fulfil. That noble promise that the Prime Minister made on 20th August, 1940, in this House, which has been twice quoted in the Debate to-clay, brought hope, I feel sure, to many who were suffering under the hardships of Nazi occupation. During all those years mothers and fathers have seen their children underfed. Some of us in this House have tried to persuade the authorities to allow strictly-controlled food supplies to go in for these children. We were told that it was not possible, but that this great relief was coming when once the Nazi domination had been broken. The thought of that, no doubt, gave hope in those dark hours to those who were suffering so greatly. We will surely redeem our promise now and redeem it to the full.
An admirable suggestion has been made as regards the 8,000 lorries that are so badly needed in the countries which have been freed and which are lying here unused because they await repair. If we cannot bring mechanics from France to do the repairs here and take the lorries back, it should be possible to ship a certain number of the lorries and have them repaired in Europe. It should certainly be possible to export spare parts and tools to make it feasible to carry through repairs to the vehicles that are lying derelict in


France. There are a certain number that have been used in relief work, first, under the American Friends' Service Committee in Vichy France, and afterwards under the French Friends' Organisation when America entered the war, which are now unusable because they have not tyres and spare parts. It would mean very little to send what is necessary to set them going. That is only an instance out of many.
There is one way in which we in this country can help with Government support and in which we shall get further support from the Government's promise to-day. A large number of relief workers are hoping to go out for service in Europe, and a number are already working there under the auspices of the Council of British Societies for Relief Abroad. That organisation unites all the societies that are engaged in this service and have corresponding international connections in Europe. The Jewish Society, Catholic Society, Y.W.C.A., Red Cross and Order of St. John, the Friends Relief Service, Friends Ambulance Unit, Salvation Army, International Service for Peace and others are all grouped under this organisation, which is recognised by the British Government. They do deserve and need support. Some of them are already collecting second-hand clothing for export to France and other countries where the need for clothing is so great. That will not be robbing anyone in this country. Free gifts are being made by thousands of people. We ought to give the utmost possible facilities for service of that kind. They desire to have rather more permission than has been granted hitherto to supplement some of the great Government schemes that are going on with additional gifts.
A certain amount of food, for instance, is needed for weaning infants; it can be prepared from non-rationed materials which can be got from a certain company in this country. It is badly wanted by the infants in the South of France, where underfeeding has been very marked for so long. The Government do not disapprove in principle, but decisions come so slowly. Cannot we have some assurance that there will be greater promptness on the part of Government Departments in dealing with requests of this kind from an authorised society speaking in the name of all these relief organisations? It would be of the greatest encouragement to workers

both at home and abroad. These voluntary workers, many of whom had experience in the last war, who are working as volunteers and giving their services from good will, bring a personal touch and a link of friendship to the service of relief which cannot always be given by an efficient but over-worked governmental or inter-governmental machine. We need that human touch. The relief which is so urgently required should not be just doled out mechanically with machine-like efficiency; it should be a sacrament of friendship, binding together the people who have sent it with the people who are getting it, and making them realise, as they must realise if civilisation is to be rebuilt, that we are one family and all members one of another.

9.9 p.m.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: In some of the remarks that I shall make I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who has just finished such an eloquent speech will agree with me. Before I pass to the main theme of my remarks, may I say one thing about France? We have all recently beard people say, "It is all very well to send food to France, but it all goes into the black market. Why don't they do something about it?" That is not quite fair. Apart from the question of supplies, we in this country have had five years of rationing and all the accumulated experience and skill which go into it. In France, on the other hand, the administrative difficulties, apart from the difficulties of supply, must be appalling. It occurred to me, as I saw on the Front Bench my right hon. Friend, now the reigning head of the Food Ministry, to ask whether it would not be a graceful gesture if he offered the services of some of his skilled administrators to France to help them in their difficulties. I do not know, of course, whether it would be welcome or not. I want to speak about another matter which I think would be a practical, and by no means small, contribution to one small sector of this vast and terrible affair. Now that he has come in, I should like to congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) on initiating this Debate and upon the eloquent, earnest and moving manner in which he put the problem before us. Like him, I have recently been discreetly, and I hope in a proper


manner, making inquiries among people I have met in the official and semi-official world, doing what I call "hunting bottlenecks," and trying to find exactly why this or that is happening or not happening.
I have been addressing my mind especially to this question: Have we got here in these islands any supplies, whether food or not, which we can spare and which are not being transported because of lack of shipping? To that my answer is quite definitely "Yes." My second question is: Is there anything we can do which we are not doing which can remedy that situation? Again, my humble answer is "Yes," that is, if we cease to talk about shipping in the ordinary, conventional sense, and speak rather in the terms of smaller craft. I hate to use that overworked term "Dunkirk," a misleading term in this case because it suggests a single spasmodic operation instead of a continuous service which will last throughout the summer at least. But I do believe that if we use the spirit of Dunkirk, and to a great extent the same vessels, the same technique and the same men, we may do something which we are not doing to restore some of that good will, faith and gratitude which, as we have heard from so many eloquent speakers, are fading away.
Briefly, I propose the formation under the Admiralty, of a Citizen Fleet. We have had citizen armies. This is a citizen fleet. My immediate suggestion to the Government, which I made privately four or five weeks ago, is that they should say to the Admiralty: "This may or may not be a practical thing, but we think there may be something in it. You are to appoint an Admiral to go into the matter, with power to examine and cross-examine all the possible Government Departments concerned." But I must be a little more particular than that. The Admiral placed in charge of this task will have to ask himself four questions. They are: (a) Have we any supplies in these islands which we can spare, whether food or not? (b) Have we craft in which to convey them? (c) Have we the crews to man the craft? Last, but by no means the least important, (d): Assuming we can start a regular service, can we provide facilities for keeping such a fleet in proper seaworthiness and repair?
On the first point I need not long delay. I was assured when I first raised the point, as we have all been assured to-day, that in regard to food there is nothing much more we can do. I agree with the Noble Lord and others, although I appreciate the point of view of the Ministry of Food and the technical reasons which hold them back, that it is a pity if the spirit of "Bundles for Britain" cannot now be turned into "Bundles from Britain" and that some generous gesture might be found possible. But I do not want to press that.
Food, however, is not everything. My information is that there are thousands of tons, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of tons, of other sorts of cargo which are waiting in these islands and are on demand from France and other countries which are not going over because there is not the shipping. My right hon. Friend the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter)—it is so nice to have a Privy Councillor as my junior—said he thought that the shipping problem was perhaps not such an enduring one as the others, and I hope he is right. But it is certain that there are supplies in this country which are not going over because they cannot at this moment be transhipped.
On the second point, it is a basic assumption that we must not interfere with naval and military operations. Therefore I do not think we can look forward to the services of those fine Landing Ships (Tanks) about which we have heard this afternoon, because I think they will be wanted for other things. But I do not see why we could not make use of perhaps some scores of the Landing Craft (Tanks) which have been made in this country. They may not be very good sea boats or be good for manoeuvring in small harbours, but they might be of great use to my scheme. I am not talking about the "Saucy Janes," or "Clara Belles" or "Skylarks." This is a more practical matter. Secondly, is it or is it not the case—this is not a question which it is really fair to present to the Secretary of State for War without notice, and I do not really expect an answer to-night: but it is a question to which my Admiral would address himself—that there are about ten paddle steamers which used to be employed by the Navy but which are now laid up, although they are still earn-


ing fat charter money, doing absolutely nothing? Those ships would be very good for the heavier kind of cargo which is waiting and we should have the advantage that we should be able to use French crews.
I would also, if I could have my way, have a look at those motor fishing vessels, very useful craft that the Admiralty have built in large numbers, first to serve the Navy and then to come back and rehabilitate our fishing industry. Unfortunately, I am told that we cannot have them, because there was some miscalculation at the Armiralty about the number of small craft required for harbour service and attending the Fleet. I am not throwing stones, because it would be a wonder if there were not some miscalculation in these vast affairs. But all these fishing vessels are good sea boats, designed for cargo, perfect for the task I have in mind. I believe they are all being earmarked for operations elsewhere, but since there has been a miscalculation apparently in budgeting for not enough small craft there might be a miscalculation in asking for too much now. If we could have a number of those motor fishing vessels they would be of great use. Fourthly, there is the question of lighters and barges. People may raise their eyebrows when I say that, and say you cannot take barges across the Channel, but that was done on D-Day.
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that about 1,000 London River lighters were taking cargoes across the Channel. There was a glorious story of a petty officer who was a London River lighterman and who set forth from Portsmouth with his crew. They ran into rought weather, and the engines broke down. He did not know what to do, because such was the degree of security and secrecy that he had not been told to which particular Continent he should direct his course. A corvette offered to tow him back, but the lighterman said: "No, that is not the spirit of the lighter-men of London River. Our tradition is that we do not lay down until we have delivered our craft." So the corvette steamed away and the lighterman said to his men: "I think it is France we are going to. We have the tarpaulin; let's hoist the old tarpaulin and sail across."
So they sailed the old barge across and by the grace of God and a fair wind they hit the American part of the coast of Normandy. That spirit still survives; and many similar craft, I dare say, could be spared from London River to-day. If hon. Members will look out of the window of the smoking-room they will see about 150 London barges. I am told that those are failures and that they would sink if you put any cargo into them, but for all that, my Admiral knows the whole coast is alive with such craft which are not failures. Then I shall be told that there are no tugs to tow them. Tugs are another "bottleneck," to use a favourite term. But tugs are not the only vessels which can tow barges. There are minesweepers solemnly sweeping the whole of this river which might well be spared now to tow some of these barges with supplies across to the other side. It is all very well to laugh at me and say that I have a bee in my bonnet about small vessels, but there is this advantage about small vessels—they can go into small places. They can go up the canals and rivers as far as the first bridge. I saw Dieppe Harbour—and I think the only people who have not received a proper tribute in all these recent events are the people who made these harbours work. If Dieppe is still full of shipping these small vessels could go into Tréport or Fecamp. Number 5 is the very numerous patrol vessels like my own little boat, too small apparently, and too slow. But there are four or five hundred small patrol vessels which have just been laid off. They are coming in by the dozen. Many of them, no doubt, are to small or too unseaworthy; but out of them quite a lot could be found to take to the Continent quite a number of pats of butter or fertilisers or seed potatoes, or whatever it might be.
That is my general picture. I could go on to say a lot more but I must now come to a close. I do not know whether the House realises that as regards the crews my Citizen Fleet is in being at the present time. Perhaps hon. Members have not heard about the Small Vessels Pool runner crews, because they are so modest, and I do not think they have been mentioned in the papers. There are 700 yachtsman, amateur mariners, old colonels and generals, sailing all round the coast, or from Iceland, or Newfoundland—they do not care where they go—bringing small craft to the place where the


Admiralty wants them to be. I am told that we must not take them away from their present task. I do not know. The naval bases are full of men who are doing nothing and are very bored. I do not know why the Navy should not do its own work and surrender these men for the kind of task I am suggesting. But, failing that, let me say this. A few weeks before D-Day there was an appeal from the Admiralty for yachtsmen, and men skilled in the ways of the water, for harbour duties. Four thousand responded. They were sifted and only 2,000 were regarded as "the tops." But if an appeal is made for this sort of task, the greater the appeal the greater the response. I am sure we should be able to main my Citizen Fleet without much difficulty, always, of course, under the Admiralty, which must have control.
Fourthly, there is the question of repairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sixthly."] I say there are four points, supplies, ships, the men and repairs. Believe me it is fourthly, and not quite lastly. I am told that if we provided the spare parts repairs could be done on the other side, as is already being done. That would keep the ships going and the foreigner employed. I am very glad to have been able to put this scheme forward briefly. I put it before the Government four weeks ago. I was told it was impracticable, but on the particular ground that we had not any food to supply, and that what we had we could easily transport. There was no reference whatever to these cargoes waiting on our shores at this moment, and which, unless something is clone, will not be transported across the sea. I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here. I shall have to be content with the head of the Army. I hope the Government will go into this matter seriously.
This country has once again been saved by the sea, and by its skill upon the sea, and it is our duty to use our skill upon the sea to the utmost, in order to help the countries who are so unhappy as to have land frontiers with Germany. I am not prepared to say how much tonnage would be involved in this little scheme, but I am perfectly sure that in the scales of what my Noble Friend calls the "psychological considerations," it would weigh very heavily indeed for some of our little boats to be seen coming in with a cargo of razor blades or seed potatoes, or whatever it

might be. It would show the people across the Channel that we do not only embark on great adventures to save our own troops, but that we are prepared to do the same thing to help them. I believe that if we call upon our great genius for organisation, as we have done so brilliantly so often and so recently, if we make an opening for that surge of the spirit which comes so readily from our people when they are well led or nobly challenged, we might once again produce results which would astonish and delight the world.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: We have been very fortunate in this Debate in having two excellent speeches from the two Burgesses for Oxford University. I was very taken with the speech of the Senior Burgess (Petty Officer Herbert) advocating a fleet of small craft leaving the Thames Estuary or the Kentish ports—pleasure steamers, landing barges and launches—carrying supplies to Europe. I feel with him that if that small fleet was able in 1940 to carry no fewer than 300,000 men from the beaches of Dunkirk under continuous air attack there is something worthy of further study in his suggestion. I was also interested in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Junior Burgess (Sir A. Salter) concerning the economic reconstruction of Europe. As I listened to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) and other speeches by other Members I could not help being struck by what my Eon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) called the sense of urgency which has permeated this Debate. Through the descriptions of hon. Members we have received a picture of a devastated Continent, of bridges and rails destroyed by retreating Armies, of fields scattered with land mines and entire cities shattered. I cannot help feeling that U.N.R.R.A. is too small and too cramped an instrument to deal with this major problem, particularly so when we realise that the Germans, fortunately for themselves, were able to organise Europe in 1940 as a single entity, for they found not only in France and the Low Countries railways, roads, and bridges comparatively undestroyed, but they were able to organise Europe as a sort of super London Passenger Transport Board, to carry supplies to every part.
Very different was our problem which all Europeans could realise. Our aeroplanes not only smashed locomotives and marshalling yards and various other centres of production but the battle raged in Normandy, the larder of Paris and Northern France. In consequence we find whole areas of France entirely cut off by broken communications. At the same time, as the Prime Minister so vividly pointed out in a recent speech, owing to the longer duration of the war in Europe than was anticipated we found two big loads of shipping overlapping, and the war in the Pacific and the war in Europe placing an undue strain on our shipping resources. What can we do about it? It appears that out of about 3,000,000 tons which the French merchant marine possessed before the war, less than 1,000,000 tons are left. I feel that French shipping in the Allied pool should be released at the earliest possible moment to carry supplies from the rich equatorial provinces of France overseas, to the Western hemisphere. We found also, I believe, that out of something like 6,000 locomotives which France possessed before the war only something like 2,500 were operating after the conquest of France last year. Surely it would be possible to send over craftsmen and supplies to repair some of these locomotives.
France has been dealt with eloquently and at some length by hon. Members today, and, as my time is short, I would like to refer briefly to two other countries. The first of these is Greece. Of all the countries of Europe, perhaps the fate of Greece has been the hardest. When the German conquerors found the obdurate spirit of the people of Greece, they determined to starve and smash and break that spirit by every means in their power. I do not believe that the limited food supplies which the Red Cross was able to get through were able to do much to help. A worse fate was theirs. Not only were the people starved, but those draught animals which the Greeks depend on so much, the donkeys and mules for carrying supplies over the mountain roads, died by thousands. As a result, the Greeks were deprived of their means of livelihood. The Greeks have done much to help us in the Mediterranean. I believe that no less than 80 per cent. of the Greek mercantile marine has been lost in carrying supplies for the Allies. Therefore, Greece demands priority on our resources. Greece

wants also the replacement of those draught animals. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say if the Bulgarians are being pressed to honour the terms of the armistice, and to return some of those animals Which they stole from Greece. I am told also, from a good source, that lorries are entirely lacking in Greece. In the Middle East there are 20,000 lorries which could be used in Greece. The Greek people want two other things: fertilisers, to help their agriculture to revive again, and a supply of tractors.
I pass rapidly from Greece to Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) gave a vivid description of the troubles of Italy. He told how the battle, when it raged in Italy, left behind not only devastation, but broken communications and fields sown with land-mines; and he told us how Italy has been cut in two, the great industrial regions of the North blocked from the South, and the entire economy of the country dislocated. Here in Italy, as in France, Greece, and Belgium, the prime need is lorries.
Hon. Members have made it amply clear that this country and the United States have an immense obligation to Europe. We cannot allow Europe to perish. We in this country, as well as being good English, should also be good Europeans. Europe has a tremendous tradition and a tremendous part to play in the world of the future, for in Europe have come together those great traditions, sprung from Greece and the Christian Church, which have made it the finest productive area in the whole world in the arts and science. This creative energy cannot be lost to the modern world; but it will be if Europe is allowed to starve and to sink into civil war. I would ask for energy in dealing with this problem, and I hope that this country and the United States will be able to unify their efforts to save Europe from the situation which my right hon Friend the Member for Oxford University suggests. But it must be done soon if Europe is to be saved.

9.34 P.m.

Major C. S. Taylor: This, I think, has been one of the most miserable Debates that I have ever attended in the House of Commons. Speech after speech has been full of woe and distress, except perhaps that of my hon. and


gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert). Very recently I was privileged to visit France for a few days, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieut. Teeling). We were fortunate indeed, not only to be landed in Paris, but to travel through Normandy, and, in Normandy, through Caen, Lisieux, Falaise and the battlefields of Le Mans down to Bordeaux, and so we were privileged to see a great deal of the French countryside. First, I should like to make a few remarks about the situation in Paris. It has, I think, already been stated in this Debate that the people in Paris are starving, and that, after the defeat of the Germans in France by the Allies, their condition has further deteriorated. Early this year, in January and February, there was no heating, no light, no food, except perhaps leeks, cauliflowers and other vegetables, and the French were existing on mashed vegetables served in cold water. There were no cooking facilities at all and no light. There has been no butter and no milk in Paris for months, and during our stay in Paris we went to visit a school. The legs of the children were past belief—thin, spindly legs, as other hon. Members who saw them can confirm. There is a black market, and there are black market restaurants, and, for the modest sum of about £5, or its equivalent at the present rate of exchange, a good meal can be bought in Paris if you know where to go. The Paris people have no belief in the franc and are perfectly willing to spend the francs they have on anything they can buy.
I want to say a word about Normandy. In Caen, Lisieux and Falaise, there is complete devastation. I have never seen anything like it; it has to be seen to be believed. But, curiously enough, there was more food in Normandy, in spite of the devastation, than there was in Paris, but, even in Normandy, it is getting very short now. The devastation has been so frightful that it has to be seen to be believed, but they have a system of communal feeding and rich and poor alike go into a barn and share the same meals. I want to try to paint a picture, quite clearly and honestly, and I would divide the conditions in France into three different categories. There are areas where there is complete starvation; there are areas where there is sufficient food; and there are areas where there is abundance; and,

on our way down between Normandy and Bordeaux, we came across some of the areas of abundance.
We were also privileged to be the guests of the American Army for one night on our way down from Normandy to Bordeaux. Perhaps I should not say too much about this, but I would like to confirm what the Noble Lord said about American Army rations. We stayed—I think I ought to say this—at an American hotel, or, rather a French hotel requisitioned by the Americans. Our breakfast was served by French waiters. We had seen the starvation of the French in Paris. Our breakfast consisted of tomato juice, porridge and cream, omelette and bacon. Did I hear a remark from the Front Bench? If there was a remark, I am quite willing to give way. I do not want to go into detail—

Earl Winterton: Give the details.

Major Taylor: This was served by French waiters, and they go back to their families and talk about it. The Secretary of State for War calls me "a skunk." He said it under his breath, but I really do believe that we should perhaps be truthful and honest on occasions. Conditions are very similar in Bordeaux and people are starving. There are people in Bordeaux who are in an extremely bad condition. They have been in prison camps for many years now and they are both underfed and poor. I unfortunately heard a story of an English woman who when she received a Red Cross parcel, having been recently released from a German camp, dribbled at the mouth before she could get the Red Cross parcel open. I do not want to be too sentimental about this, but to convey to the House that there are British nationals in France who are badly in need of food.
Just outside Bordeaux, at the mouth of the river, there are a large number of Germans. There are 5,000 Germans on one side of the river mouth and about 7,000 on the other side. In consequence, the Port of Bordeaux cannot be used. I want to know how these Germans at the mouth of that river are fed. I am informed that a lot of their food comes from Spain in trawlers. If it comes from Spain in rum-running trawlers, the British Government should make representations to the Spanish Government to try and stop this export of food from Spain to the


Germans on the West coast of France, and stop those trawlers bartering food for furniture and pictures and everything that the Germans have looted froth the French. I would like to give some of the reasons for the troubles as I saw them in France.
They are, first, a complete lack of transport. They have no beneficent Lord Leathers, no organisation, and no friends of the housewife like the Minister of Food or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to organise their food supplies for them. Can the Allies help? Apart from humanitarian grounds, we have, surely, strategic reasons for helping France. We want to see our lines of communication preserved and no troubles in France, as there will be unless some help is forthcoming.
I would like to say one final word about the F.F.I., who are containing those Germans on the West coast of France. They have no clothes worthy of the name. They have a motley collection of uniforms some from the last war, in rags and tatters, and surely, an appeal might be made to the Home Guard of this country to give up their uniforms and to ship them over to France, so that some of these gallant troops might be clothed. I support very strongly the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert). I believe that the ships could be made available and that there is stuff in this country and means by which we can help, and, for goodness' sake, let us help now, because to-morrow may be too late.

9.45 P.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): I cannot imagine a Debate which could have been more worth while than the Debate we have had to-day. It has given us all a great deal of food for thought. The picture painted, almost on every side, has been a sombre one, and very much in contrast with some of the earlier and rather optimistic visions of the post-war world which were handed out to us. The case made by the first two speakers in the Debate was a very formidable one, sombre and formidable. It was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the light of his recent mission to France, and perhaps if I try to pick up some of the points which were not covered by the

Lord President—and they will be, for the most part, necessarily points of detail—or some of those raised since my right hon. Friend's speech, it may serve to round off this Debate.
My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and other hon. Members have referred to the rations of prisoners of war. I must say that I simply do not know in what way the American Armies treat their prisoners of war in France in the matter of rations. I stated our own practice to the House a few days ago. Prisoners who are not in working parties, get the same rations as the British civilians in this country; those who are working get the scale of soldiers at home. I will certainly look into this matter again, and see if we are doing more than the Convention requires of us, but I would like to make it clear that I am quite certain in my own mind that we must strictly observe the Convention. On the other hand, I see no reason whatever for going one inch beyond it.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question of my right hon. Friend? I hope I shall not embarrass him. In view of the fact that British troops are serving under an American Commander-in-Chief, and in view of the tremendous moral responsibility we have in this matter, will he ascertain whether it is or is not true that German prisoners in American hands are receiving rations equal to those of American soldiers, and that those rations are seven or eight times the food available to the French civilian population?

Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend—

Sir J. Griģģ: I have a very limited time and I would like to get this out of the way. I will certainly make inquiries about that. Naturally I shall have to do it with extreme discretion, because, after all, it is no good adopting a Pharasaical attitude over these things.
Then I come to some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). He paid a tribute to the operation of the Civil Affairs section of the military staffs, and I am very glad that this tribute has been paid because, in times past, not everybody has been so generous. There has been a good


deal of criticism, much of it unfounded, and some of it positively ungenerous. Naturally I personally entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend and I am very grateful to him. Then he mentioned, as did other speakers, the situation in the Mediterranean, and perhaps it would be useful if I gave a very short retrospect of events in this matter of Civil Affairs in the Mediterranean theatre. When the Allied Armies entered Italy they were, as hon. Members have pointed out, faced with a country left in a state of complete devastation, and, what is worse than that, a population shorn of all sense of civil or civic responsibility by many years of Fascist domination and the most slender and inadequate means of subsistence. The degree of destruction imposed upon these hapless people by the Germans on their retreat through Italy was quite beyond any concept of military necessity.
All of this, naturally, means a very heavy burden on the Allied Commander in this theatre. Following closely behind operational areas came A.M.G.O.T., which in those days was critically dealt with in this House and elsewhere, although I am not sure that since then there has not grown up a tendency to regret the halcyon days of A.M.G.O.T. At any rate, it was a combined United Kingdom and United States organisation which was charged with all the immediate problems affecting the civil population. So far as relief was concerned this organisation was, with the corresponding organisations in all other theatres of war, charged to work to a standard calculated to prevent disease and unrest among the population. Apart from that it had the task of preserving law and order in a manner which prevented advancing Armies from being embarrassed by the presence on their long lines of communication of the civil population. Another heavy responsibility of A.M.G.O.T. was the control of the movement of refugees to the rear. As the battle moved forward these responsibilities were assumed by what was then known as, "The Allied Control Commission." This was, again, a joint United Kingdom and United States organisation and this undertook, in conjunction with the Italian Government, the task of co-ordinating the wider aspects of civilian relief. These two organisations were faced with the many

and complex aspects of literally governing areas of the country as they were progressively liberated. But the economic problem of procuring and importing vast tonnages of all types of relief supplies was also a part of their duties. As in the case of North-West Europe, this involved the creation of large stock piles in this theatre of operations, and the problems of distribution in Italy, in the conditions I have just described, can readily be imagined.
The outstanding problem, which was more difficult in Italy than in France, Belgium or Holland, was to encourage local production of food-stuffs and other suitable commodities. What was known in Italy as the "amassment of crops for equitable distribution," in the face of a black market which throve in that country more than in any other parts of Europe, was a task which was no mean one, and there was no easy solution. Nevertheless, a considerable degree of success has been achieved, and to-day Italian agriculture is contributing a substantial proportion to meet the needs of the people. But in considering these measures of military relief—and this is the motif which runs throughout our story of the affairs of liberated Europe—the agreed policy of the Allies is, and must be, to encourage the liberated people to assume responsibility for their own affairs as quickly as possible. I think my noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing insisted that that was a vital criterion of our administration, and I am glad to be able to tell him that that is a definite instruction to all civil affairs officers who go into liberated territories. With this object in view the Allied Commission—the word "Control" has been dropped—have insisted and even urged that the Italian Government should take an ever-increasing share in, and supervision of, their own affairs. That has been carried out progressively until, now, whole areas, districts, provinces, behind the battle line, are in the hands and under the responsibility of the Italian Government. When they require technical assistance the Allied Commission is there to try and supply it. I think that on the whole we may take pride in the measure of independence which we have assured to the Italian Government since the early days of the landings in the toe and the heel of Italy. My hon. and gallant Friend


the Member for Abingdon referred to the problems of Northern Italy which loom ahead. They are indeed very grave problems, and I think it is net an exaggeration to say that those problems far transcend any of those we have hitherto dealt with in the Southern and middle parts of Italy. All I can say at the moment is that plans have been prepared to bring relief to the Northern parts of Italy as promptly as possible. I do not wish for one moment to underestimate the difficulty of carrying out those plans. The area of Northern Italy is much more industrial than the South. There are greater masses of population. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the destruction wrought by the Germans may be even more devastating in the North than in the South.
Perhaps I may mention briefly another point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon. He exhorted us to learn from the lessons of the Bengal famine. I am glad to be able to tell him that we have used the services of one of the people who had experience of the Bengal famine to assist in the investigations which have been carried out to meet another need which has been stressed in the Debate to-day, namely, the need for predigested food in those areas of the Continent where the people have been suffering so much from under-nutrition that ordinary food is useless to them for some little time.
I come now to the speech of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert). He asked that we should be prepared to help France and other countries through people who have gained experience of these problems in our own Ministry of Food and kindred Departments. The Government certainly are prepared to contribute to the full from the wealth of our administrative experience in matters of this sort. I think it is not unfair to claim that we do know, after five and a half years of war, how to make the best use of limited supplies of food, and that it is fair to claim that we do know how to distribute and ration food. Whenever we are asked to send officers from the Ministry of Food to help to establish an administration of this sort, we do so. And let me hasten to say that this offer is made not from any arrogance, but from

a genuine desire to help. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University advocated in a very eloquent way his scheme for the use of little ships. I had not previously heard of it, and still less had I heard that his original propounding of this scheme was met by what I believe in music hall parlance is called "the bird." I can tell him that the ideas which he has put forward are being actually examined. There are difficulties, as has already been pointed out in the original answer to his application, but there is a genuine desire to extract any good that may be obtained from his scheme.
Now let me come to the Junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). Naturally everyone listens to what he has to say with great attention, because he has unrivalled knowledge of these problems. The first appeal that he made was to give U.N.R.R.A. a chance. I am not quite clear whether I properly understood him. There are certain limitations on the use of U.N.R.R.A., limitations which he deplored but which nevertheless exist. Subject to those limitations, to the best of my knowledge the military authorities here, and I think at Washington, are doing all they can to work U.N.R.R.A. into the picture. In Greece there was to begin with—and it was resumed after hostilities were over—a joint organisation to deal with problems of relief, and we are all now arranging to hand over complete responsibility to U.N.R.R.A. as quickly as possible. As far as displaced persons in Germany are concerned U.N.R.R.A. and S.H.A.E.F. are already working together on plans to deal with this vast and terrible problem, which aims at placing ultimate and complete responsibility upon U.N.R.R.A. For the rest, for those who can afford to pay, U.N.R.R.A. only comes in by invitation, and there cannot be any question of preliminary collaboration with the military. It is entirely a matter for the indigenous Governments. As far as ex-enemy Powers are concerned U.N.R.R.A. is debarred from operating.

Earl Winterton: My right hon. Friend is surely not correct in saying that the ultimate responsibility rests with U.N.R.R.A. Ultimate responsibility rests with the inter-Governmental Committee.

Sir J. Griģģ: "Ultimate" is perhaps not the right word. It is "penultimate."


If my right hon. Friend would like me to substitute "penultimate," I am quite ready to do so. To come back to the Junior Member for Oxford University, as far as ex-enemy countries are concerned U.N.R.R.A. is debarred by its charter from operating in them, with the limited exception of Italy. I think the United Kingdom and the United States rather deplore this exclusion; nevertheless, the smaller Powers enforced it against the bigger Powers and there can be no question of collaboration between the military and U.N.R.R.A. in the matter of relief in the ex-enemy countries with the possible exception of Italy. In the case of Italy an exception up to a certain limited financial amount was admitted, and to the hest of my knowledge an arrangement has been or is on the point of being arrived at between U.N.R.R.A. and the Italian Government, and to operate this extension of their functions the military and U.N.R.R.A. are, I think, in touch as regards Italy.
My right hon. Friend referred to the use of shipping for the liberated countries. I have not the time, and I am afraid I have not the knowledge, to deal fully with his remarks on a subject on which he is not only a past, but a present master. I can assure him of one thing, that plans are definitely under consideration by the United States and the United Kingdom shipping and supply authorities concerned, and with U.N.R.R.A., with a view to taking full advantage of any shipping which becomes surplus, as a result of the German defeat taking place earlier than is calculated, or earlier than is assumed for purposes of planning.
What then is the main lesson of this Debate? I think it is not unfair to say that the lesson is that we are faced with a problem of which it is impossible to over-estimate the gravity. I would claim that the military, who have a limited function in this matter, have done, are doing, and, I think I can very nearly guarantee will continue to do the part which has been assigned to them, and that is to prevent disease and unrest in the immediate wake of the armies. Even this limited objective means very large demands on world resources. After the military period come the heavier problems of reconstruction, and on this, as I said

at the beginning of my remarks, I am quite sure that the Debate has given us all food for the most serious thought. The Junior Burgess for Oxford University and many other Members have said that we shall find a scorched earth practically all over Europe. Certainly we shall find a situation which will tax all our ingenuity and resource. It may be that the proper way to deal with this, as the right hon. Gentleman the Junior Burgess for Oxford University said, is to set up a reconstruction council and that this subject should be early on the agenda for the Peace Conference. Certainly this is a matter on which His Majesty's Government will take note of the opinions which have been expressed in the Debate.
May I, in all humility, utter a word of warning here? When we reflect on the magnitude of the future misery which may be in store for Europe, we should beware lest we accept too lightly, or seem to accept too lightly, any suggestion that we or our Allies are responsible. Let us never by unnecessary mutual recriminations get ourselves into a position in which the responsibility for what may be a very dreadful state of affairs can be fastened on us. The responsibility rests, and must rest, firmly upon the Axis Powers, and primarily upon Germany. Germany it was who precipitated the world into this gigantic conflict. Germany it was who grabbed everything which could be grabbed from the countries which she has occupied. Germany it was who, when she was finally turned out of those countries, pillaged and destroyed on a scale far beyond military necessity, or under military expediency. The hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) likened Hitler to some Samson, pulling down the temple of Dagon upon enemy and friend alike, or to somebody who was determined to produce in Europe a "Twilight of the Gods." Whether that be so or not, it is Germany who, by her wantonness in destruction over wide areas, has almost rendered impossible that civilisation and ordered life which is the mark of modern society. Germany it is who has sought to plunge the world back into the misery and hopelessness of the Dark Ages. Germany, and the whole world must never be


allowed to forget her responsibility, and above all, Germany must never get into a position in which she will be capable of perpetrating these horrors for the third time.
A final word about the position of this country. The Lord President of the Council dealt with it very fully. Our ration scales are not large. The hon. lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), for what purpose I do not know, said: "Look at the amount of food outside the ration, that can be obtained in this country." She might be interested to know that the quantity of food consumed outside the home is not more than 19 per cent. of the whole, and that the quantity of food consumed in luxury restaurants is not more than one-fifth of one per cent. of the total; so that the rations are, broadly, a measure of the standards of consumption in this country.

Miss Rathbone: People can buy things in addition to their rations. The point is that you can supplement—for meat, buy fish; for tea, buy coffee, and so on.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Those who have to live in working-class homes know how difficult it is to carry on, even with supplementary rations.

Sir J. Griģģ: Our people have been in this war longer than anybody else, except the Germans and the Poles. Many of them have been subject to bombardment for a considerable part of the five and a half years that the war has lasted. We are still going all out on war production and we are mobilised for blood and sweat as no nation, except possibly the Germans, under their present desperation, have ever been mobilised before. Our reserves are, as has been pointed out, at the bare minima necessary to carry on distribution without interruption. This is a very powerful argument.
On the other hand let us beware of calling with undue stridency for further sacrifices from those who have been so generous to us in our need. A good case can be ruined by bad, or unfair advocacy. Obviously, a situation which is so fraught with possible misery calls for the most urgent review, and that is why the Minister of Production and the Minister

of Food have gone to Washington. Obviously, as has been pointed out, overproduction, extravagance and waste should be cut out, but when all that has been done, we cannot escape the horrible conclusion that in the months immediately ahead of us, millions of people will go hungry and great numbers will suffer deep privation. We, in the more fortunate countries, ought to do all we can to help. His Majesty's Government will do all in their power. The only question is: What is the limitation on our power after 5½ years of war?

Mr. Driberģ: Before he resumes his seat, would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the allegation that was made that the German troops in the West of France are being provisioned from Spain? If that is so, would he ask the Foreign Secretary to make representations?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think that that is a sphere which has anything to do with the British Government.

Commander Prior: Have British prisoners of war in Germany received the same rations as the Germany Army?

Sir J. Griģģ: The Convention requires that they should receive the same rations as depot troops. Speaking from memory—I would like to verify it—I do not think we have ever been able to establish that they have been given smaller rations than the troops who are actually guarding them.

Mr. Driberģ: The Secretary of State for War has just said he did not think it was within the sphere of the British Government that German troops, still holding out in the West of France, presumably for the purpose of continuing the war to the best of their ability, should be provisioned from Spain—

It being a quarter-past Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Gary.]

Mr. Driberģ: I apologise for detaining the House for a moment longer, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether


he is aware of the position I have mentioned?

Sir J. Griģģ: I only meant to say that I could not possibly be aware, because this particular area is not in a zone for which the British Army and the British Government are responsible. I do not wish, at this moment, to go beyond that.

Mr. Driberģ: If the right hon. Gentleman finds, on investigation, that German troops who are still presumably trying to

fight to the best of their ability, are being provisioned from Spain, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make representations about that to the Spanish Government?

Sir J. Griģģ: The Foreign Secretary will, no doubt, see the Debate to-morrow, and will take whatever action he may think proper.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.